> nuclear reactors that take a fuckton of money and many years to come online.
Yeah, but they last the majority of a lifetime. If you look at areas that built out nuclear 50 years ago, their kids and grandkids have still been benefiting from those infrastructure choices. They've been politically agnostic, because, once built, they're there. They're also relatively clean, and insensitive to the weather.
I'm a big advocate for renewables, but it's hard to not also advocate for nuclear to be in that mix.
> I'm a big advocate for renewables, but it's hard to not also advocate for nuclear to be in that mix.
It's not hard to argue that new nuclear should be added to the mix. The cost and time required to build them is non trivial. During that entire construction time you can build renewables substantially faster and for a lower price. And while you're building the prices continue to go down, meaning it gets ever cheaper. Then there's also the cumulative CO2 savings of getting the green energy faster, 1GW in 15 years requires 15 years of lost CO2 savings, but a 1 GW of renewables in 2 years saves you 13 of those 15.
> The cost and time required to build them is non trivial. During that entire construction time you can build renewables substantially faster and for a lower price.
They're not mutually exclusive. If time and money were the only considerations in life, I'd only have pets instead of some kids too. We'd never go to war because it would be expensive and costly. I'd drive only gas cars because they're cheaper and easier to fuel up. And so on and so forth.
Nuclear takes more time and money, but it is great for the diversification of your energy grid. It will likely outlive either of us. It will produce jobs for generations and a RELIABLE base load for as long as it exists. It will not easily be at the whims of different politicians of the day because of the momentum required to get it going in the first place.
The list goes on. We shouldn't make energy decisions based only on time and money in an economy where other choices don't play by those same rules.
Except they are mutually exclusive. Money spent by utility companies (or by taxpayers more broadly) to add new generation is not infinite, every dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar not spent on other renewables.
For better or worse, we live in a highly capitalist world, and most western electricity is an open market. In this construct we only make decisions based on money.
The markets won’t do it, because nukes don’t make any capital sense to invest in, so the only way you can build nukes is nation states forcing it. Forcing the populace to pay extra for very expensive power that will only get even less competitive over the 30+ year lifetime… is not a popular move. It works only in single party states (eg china)
This is just the reality of economics and the world we live in
Power build outs are rarely driven by cost structures in a vacuum, or we'd all still be digging for coal. They're regularly driven by policy. It is a farce to think electricity choices are entirely capitalistic in nature, although maybe that's the case in some localized regions that probably (and regularly) hold other backwards policies in the name of "capitalism".
Where? In every country in the world? Because the world met something like 85% of the energy growth of 2025 with renewables. All regions of the world are seeing massive and accelerating renewables buildout. All forced by the state? Extraordinary claims require evidence.
The state's role is to help shape policies that might help people over a time horizon greater than a couple of years. Often, this means current people are supposed to subsidize the world for future generations. This used to be the societal handshake that let kids have better outcomes than their parents. Somewhere along the way, the average joe seems to have lost sight of that societal contract and is more focused on instant gratification and short term payback.
I agree in general, but you may as well be wishing for ponies and unicorns as for change here. Short term economics is the current dominant force.
Also consider that if you’re wrong about the progress of clean tech, and it closes the gaps on storage, the kids “better outcome” is going to be being locked into paying higher energy prices for a lot of their life. (Of course if you’re right it will help them)
> If this were 3M making nasty stuff for Northrop to put in bombs and drop on brown people or Exxon scheming up something bad in Alaska or bulldozing a national park for solar panels or some other legacy BigCo doing slimy things that are in the interests of them and the government but against the interest of the public they'd have 40yr of preexisting trade group publications, bought and paid for academic and media chatter, etc, etc, they could point to and say "look, this is fine because the stuff we paid into in advance to legitimize these sorts of things as they come up says it is" though obviously they'd use very different words.
My friend, this paragraph needed some periods. I could not follow what you were trying to say - but it seemed interesting enough to consider retyping.
Reality is the success of current products mostly hedges on the momentum their companies have built over the last decade, rather than the actual innovations of those current products. Guerilla advertising is also used super effectively.
Sadly, while there is plenty of onus on the average American Joe/Jane/Joaquin Phoenix, this is also the result of systematic defunding of education streams, increasing disparities, and big propaganda over the last 50 years.
You're not expected to be in the loop for why every minor org in the government is helpful to the country, much like I'm not supposed to know the roles and responsibilities of everyone else in my company.
But if I have a specific question regarding what some entity does, I can always look into it on my own time, rather than have a default stance on what they might do/not do.
My stance is completely neutral. My comment was about the temp in this thread being extremely negative and so I’m asking how come? What are they doing please enlighten me. Not bc I think it’s the opposite, bc I’d like to be educated by my peers in order to be on their side or atleast have a discussion. I didn’t realize this is wrong by pretty much all who has responded to me. Telling me to google it myself and I’m not genuine and I’m being called names.. this is. Wild.
tl;dr is there's very poor ROI to do nothing to improve our polluting habits and banking on the world sorting itself out.
Furthermore, most actions we can take to improve climate outcomes can also improve societal and technological outcomes. The only downside to taking more actions to have clean energy and less pollution are based on made up economic rules that normal people are supposed to follow, but that the super rich/powerful skirt at their leisure. A cleaner future benefits the VAST majority, irrespective of climate change. And the bonus is that if climate change does progress, we're better suited to manage it.
Or we can keep burning liquified dinosaur bones and partying like cigarettes don't cause cancer. I get the appeal of the 60s for how care free people could be - they lived without consequence. And we're stuck dealing with their failed policies.
While I have no problem blaming the rich. You are post here you are most probably part of those people who are skirting it at their leisure. Even I with a life long devotion to climate and environmental issues have a hard time to be a positive effect. The only way to not skirt your responsibilities right now is to be a Greta Thunberg.
> liquified dinosaur bones
I know this is a nice factoid that does not need to be true. When I was 13 I did believed it, so now days I try to not spread this factoid. We can talk about the fascinating history of millions of years of efficient carbon storage on our planet.
The rich and powerful bit was specifically around how we could easily do more for clean energy and pollution if politicians and ultra elites stopped acting like it's economics preventing us to do so. World powers are fine to go to war on a whim, but the second we talk about health care, cleaner energy, pollution, or other topics that will broadly benefit humanity, we are met with "this is too expensive to do".
Yeah, but they last the majority of a lifetime. If you look at areas that built out nuclear 50 years ago, their kids and grandkids have still been benefiting from those infrastructure choices. They've been politically agnostic, because, once built, they're there. They're also relatively clean, and insensitive to the weather.
I'm a big advocate for renewables, but it's hard to not also advocate for nuclear to be in that mix.
reply