alt Hacker NewsThere was an obvious path that the environmentalists mostly opposed. A decade is plenty of time for massive scale buildout of nuclear power. If we'd started that a decade ago we'd be in a good position now.
Replies
yup.
I remember seeing just a few years back, a Greenpeace postlet moaning about dangerous nuclear energy
I think it's pretty clear that nothing meaningful will be done because there's no shock value to entertain the "empaths" like there is with war and other stuff
The problem is that we attempted to build nuclear power. It just didn’t deliver. There was massive state support behind it.
It is hard looking at Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Hanhikivi and the countless cancelled projects and think: ”That’s what I want some more of!!”
Indeed. At this point I’d say that the “green movement” has done more damage to the planet than the fossil fuel industry.
The entire Western world (with the exception of France) pretty much stopped building nuclear power plants 40 years ago, because of a single accident that by its most pessimistic estimates killed fewer people in total than coal emissions kill every 3 days. It’s madness.
Nuclear power is expensive. One of the most expensive ways to produce electricity when you capitalize expense of the construction of the plant into the electricty cost. Path forward is wind/solar + storage which is cheapest next to hydropower.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity