Quote (Thor123422 @ 1 May 2020 05:12)
Nuclear is insanely safe compared to any fossil fuel, produces safer waste compared to fossil fuels, etc. etc. and is specifically designed to provide a baseload.
We have the technology. We just don't have the political capital to implement it. And no, it won't be cheap to deploy, but in the long run it will be far cheaper.
Your claim was that, quote, "it's very possible to transition our country to fully renewable power in 30 years". Nuclear is not a renewable, so this does nothing to prove your point.
On the subject: I, personally, am very much in favor of using nuclear power as a bridge technology to buy time while the problems with renewables are sorted out/technological breakthroughs become possible/the world population shrinks to a more sustainable level.
It must still be noted that going full nuclear is not a reaonable long-term option. Iirc, the world's known uranium supply lasts for another 200 years of nuclear power at current rates, so if the whole world transitioned into a mix where the entire baseload is provided by nuclear, we'd burn through it in no time. Furthermore, with the levels of global warming that have to be expected in even the most optimistic scenarios, a lot of rivers will seasonally fall dry or carry low water, which renders nuclear power plants unusable. This is what already happened in some places of Western Europe during the last two summers. And finally, it must be kept in mind that increasing the number of nuclear power plants hundredfold or so would also increase the risk of large-scale, tchernobyl-style nuclear disasters by at least the same factor.
Which brings me back to my position that nuclear is a very good bridge technology, but not a real long-term solution for the world's energy problem. At least not the current versions of it.
This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 1 2020 06:24pm