> Nuclear isn't profitable.
Neither are things like public transportation and healthcare either?
Neither are things like public transportation and healthcare either?
This sort of cynical, tribal behaviour among people who claim to just want to stop climate change is pretty disappointing.
Now, in the year 2023, when batteries plus solar are cheaper than new nuclear, IMHO the only same thing to do is to deploy massive amounts of solar wind and batteries, and cheer on nuclear trying to get cheaper.
Demanding that we deploy a ton of expensive nuclear when we can't even reliably complete construction in the US is a fool's game. We don't have time to waste on nuclear, today.
Which is to say, there is definitely some tribalism, but nuclear advocates are the most tribal people I encounter in energy discussions. There doesn't even seem to be much understanding of current and past projects among nuclear's advocates.
Nowhere in my post did I say Germany should be be abandoning renewables or that they should be heavily focusing on nuclear power. I just said that I think it's a shame that they threw out perfectly good reactors long before they reached the end of their lifetime out of irrational fears.
Agreed that existing nuclear should stick around as long as maintenance doesn't get more costly than replacing with other options.
Groups change you know.
Be sure to send Biden a card thanking him.
> Be sure to send Biden a card thanking him.
That'd be a particularly weird thing for me to do given that, as I said already in this very comment chain, I'm a Canadian living in Germany...
I mean, it's great that the USA might invest more in nuclear power, but throwing some peanuts towards new reactors doesn't really fix the fact that they're a massive laggard when it comes to reducing emissions.
There's a ton more work to be done than just building nuclear power plants.
If we are talking about building a zero-carbon energy system, we should be talking about the lowest cost method of doing that, over times, taking into account externalities.
All the modeling of zero carbon energy systems finds that massive amounts of solar and wind are the backbone of energy generation. The amount of nuclear varies based on cost assumptions, and in particular if they use current battery costs and if they model the ever decreasing battery costs, but nuclear plays a very small role in the lowest cost zero-carbon grids of the future. A smaller role than it does today.