The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn’t happened yet.
I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output
…no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.
Imo, renewable should still be the target, nuclear should be the bridge towards renewable until it’s feasible enough
Which is exactly what they’re doing if you read the article.
💯
100% renewable should be the endgame, and nuclear is what we should be using until we get there.
Building a stop-gap that will be ready 20 years after you get to the main destination for 10x the price isn’t a bright move.
This would be a stronger argument, if it wasn’t 20 years old already.
The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn’t happened yet.
The second best time is now.
The best time to ignore the nuclear scare mongers us whenever they open their ignorant mouths.
You’re confusing tired contempt with fear.
No, you definitely have an irrational fear of nuclear power.
Are you really making that argument in good faith?
Removed by mod
I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output
Battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.
…no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.