There's no cheaper electricity source then renewables, by a long shot. Why bother with nuclear?
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-c...
1. fields belong to trees, grass, animals, not to some ugly panels that were produced with millions of tons of toxic waste that was then dumped into the ocean.
2. windmills are ugly, kill birds, ruin microclimate.
3. Additional expertise in fission will lead to more capital, talent, and mindshare available to develop fusion further.
How would a spacefaring civilization get off from this rock and survive without nukes?
Colonization of planets cannot happen without them. Renewables is just the Sun, rebadged, nothing "renewable" about it.
We should not destroy this planet JUST so that we can colonise other planets. That is risky at best, self-sabotaging at worst.
(The climate disaster is not an excuse to say 'we have to colonise other planets or we're toast!' BTW)
You may not like it, but the Earth is kept warm enough for life to exist by nuclear reactions deep inside its molten core.
Nuclear fission is literally what sustains your life.
Otherwise, the planet would be too cold, and it would lack tectonic movements, both are crucial for the emergence of complex life.
Please review The Science(tm): https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fi...
FYI: plate tectonics affect the carbon cycle, help regulate the atmosphere, and thus ultimately contribute to keeping our planet's surface at a comfortable not-too-hot and not-too-cold temperature.
Nuclear is good. Windmills are dumb.
The broader argument against nuclear is the fact we have superior options available with FAR less set up time (solar, wind, hydro, etc). Battery tech is also starting to improve, meaning transport is becoming more possible. You have to be at least subconsciously aware of that, or you wouldn't have had so much to sling at alternative forms of energy.
The waste caused by wind and solar are far exceeded by nuclear waste (even with better options like thorium cycle plants).
This is relevant because if we are to use nuclear power, it should offer a good alternative to these options. I would love nuclear power to be viable because it would mean more research into nuclear physics, but the reality is that it confers a geopolitical risk, takes 10 years to set up a traditional reactor, and mini reactors are inefficient at best.
There is also the issue of cost per Watt - which is highly dependant on location and regulation. The majority of what I have seen in this category is unfavorable though (but, that could change).
Nuclear physics is good. Nuclear power is sub-optimal. No one is trying to stop the earths core, or the Sun's fusion, or bananas from radiating. The argument is against building reactors.
1: You can not use fossil fuels when the weather or demand changes.
2: Any renewable storage combination must be cheaper than nuclear.
The first step is the easy step. Make a law that outlaws energy generated by fossil fuel to be connected to the main grid. We can start forming that law today. Fossil fuels are several order more expensive than renewables, kills an untold number of people every day, shorten lifespans, and destroys the planet. No one should bother using it for energy.
I don't think we even have enough proven mineral reserves to supply sufficient battery storage to supplement the renewable aka unreliable grid, and hydro dams aren't always right nearby to pump the storage. Long haul transmission eats up huge chunks of generated energy too.
I don't get this weird fetish with fields upon fields of solar panels and windmills, vs a relatively very tiny building that produces gigawatts constantly for several decades.
Why is it better to destroy ecosystems, to destroy fields and kill birds? Just to assuage some irrational phobia around the same thing that's literally heating the Earth's crust?