We’re building solar about as quickly as we can, and without cannibalising EV battery supply chains are also maxed out on batteries. Fission power remains uncompetitive with natural gas; you’d have to convince Western consumers to bear higher prices for reduced emissions which nobody is willing to do.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
By noting it’s irrelevant. Solar production isn’t capital constrained. Certainly not in the West.
I was mainly reacting to this. Can nuclear really not compete with gas even if the government subsidized both equally? (with all the caveats that come with comparing subsidies)
What I do know is fission has a horrible cost profile. First there’s a huge build cost, which can often skyrocket unpredictably. Then you’ve got a hugely profitable part where you’re basically printing money. Then there’s an enormous cost at the end.
Huge cleanup costs, whether it’s nuclear or coal, basically means either government has its eye on the ball to an excellent extent (Australia seems to be good here.) or it’s not going to be fixed except by the same government that didn’t tie down the guys who made the money enough.
I’d call fission a bad choice for countries with weak or chaotic government. You need a rock solid civil service to allow it.
(You’ll observe the same is true of almost every mineral extraction project.)
Which is why I mentioned consumers. Voters have made this incredibly clear every time polled: we are not wiling to pay more to reduce emissions.
2018 in America, "57 percent of Americans are willing to pay a $1 monthly fee; 23 percent are willing to pay a monthly fee of $40" [1]. 2018 in France, "carbon taxes on petrol and diesel" prompt les gilets jaunes [2]. 2024 in America, "more than half of Americans are unwilling to pay any amount of money to combat climate change" [3].
And then there is the global success of climate-skeptic or outright denialist citing the cost of Paris Agreement compliance.
[1] https://apnorc.org/projects/is-the-public-willing-to-pay-to-...
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/31/opinions/macron-warning-c...
[3] https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views...
I do recall one of the catchphrases that surfaced around les gilets jaunes: "these people are going on about the end of the world while we're just trying to make it to the end of the month".
It's too bad that doesn't prompt deeper reflection about and anger at just who benefits from such a bifurcation of interest.
That's putting it mildly.
This approach to "polling" also appears to ignore the fact that statistically speaking, almost half "the population" made the opposite choice. This makes sweeping statements about "what people want" based on this sort of thing pretty suspect.
Of course, the claim could be true, nevertheless. This sort of "evidence" isn't really very salient, however.