i disagree. nuclear power is expensive to build (usually exceeding the planned costs), is not resistant to high heat in summer (as shown by french summers), and a proper way of getting rid of nuclear waste is still not developed.
One Big Chart: how does the cost of nuclear power compare to renewables?
Nuclear reactor in France shut down over drought
Chooz Nuclear Plant on Belgian border turned off after dry summer evaporates water needed to cool reactors
They go so far over budget because of lawsuits, usually. Vogtle was announced in like 2011 and didn’t even get to break ground until 2017, then got caught up in even more lawsuits, if I recall correctly. And while conventional nuclear plants will probably always have huge upfront costs that take 30 years to offset, SMRs are darn close to a full reality and those will be a lot cheaper, and will get cheaper over time, like solar panels did.
There’s a plant in Phoenix Arizona that uses city wastewater to cool the reactors, so they can hold up to hot dry climates just fine if designed to do so. (Fun side fact, the plant has to clean the rad waste out of the water before they use it - the rad waste from medical procedures that get into wastewater would be enough to exceed their allowance of acceptable release).
I’ll give you the waste issue, but it’s 100% a matter of politics. You’re going to have to convince a state to take it on and none of them will. But on-site cask storage isn’t the worst option. It’s worked for a long time. There’s also a lot of research going into other stuff we might be able to do with it. (In fact, waste isn’t an issue in France because they already recycle it; the US doesn’t because some of the recycled materials could be used to build bombs).
By footprint (in terms of land and waste) nuclear is the best option still. It’s still the most stable output (save perhaps geothermal, but you can’t do that everywhere) One day we might have batteries good enough to make that less of an issue but right now it’s probably not a good idea to abandon nuclear.
Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, it’s an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.
Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science “functioning”?
Edit: Seems like this is just the potato version of the “science is what’s true whether or not you believe it” quote applied to policy…which actually doesn’t work.
It doesn’t matter whether or not nuclear plants are possible if humans don’t build them. The science backing them existing is meaningless.
i disagree. nuclear power is expensive to build (usually exceeding the planned costs), is not resistant to high heat in summer (as shown by french summers), and a proper way of getting rid of nuclear waste is still not developed.
One Big Chart: how does the cost of nuclear power compare to renewables?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2024/may/24/nuclear-power-australia-liberal-coalition-peter-dutton-cost
CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
Nuclear reactor in France shut down over drought Chooz Nuclear Plant on Belgian border turned off after dry summer evaporates water needed to cool reactors
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nuclear-reactor-in-france-shut-down-over-drought/1952943
They go so far over budget because of lawsuits, usually. Vogtle was announced in like 2011 and didn’t even get to break ground until 2017, then got caught up in even more lawsuits, if I recall correctly. And while conventional nuclear plants will probably always have huge upfront costs that take 30 years to offset, SMRs are darn close to a full reality and those will be a lot cheaper, and will get cheaper over time, like solar panels did.
There’s a plant in Phoenix Arizona that uses city wastewater to cool the reactors, so they can hold up to hot dry climates just fine if designed to do so. (Fun side fact, the plant has to clean the rad waste out of the water before they use it - the rad waste from medical procedures that get into wastewater would be enough to exceed their allowance of acceptable release).
I’ll give you the waste issue, but it’s 100% a matter of politics. You’re going to have to convince a state to take it on and none of them will. But on-site cask storage isn’t the worst option. It’s worked for a long time. There’s also a lot of research going into other stuff we might be able to do with it. (In fact, waste isn’t an issue in France because they already recycle it; the US doesn’t because some of the recycled materials could be used to build bombs).
By footprint (in terms of land and waste) nuclear is the best option still. It’s still the most stable output (save perhaps geothermal, but you can’t do that everywhere) One day we might have batteries good enough to make that less of an issue but right now it’s probably not a good idea to abandon nuclear.
The good thing about science is that it doesn’t care if you disagree, it just works the way it does
Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, it’s an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.
And OP never disputed the science anyways?
Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science “functioning”?
Edit: Seems like this is just the potato version of the “science is what’s true whether or not you believe it” quote applied to policy…which actually doesn’t work.
It doesn’t matter whether or not nuclear plants are possible if humans don’t build them. The science backing them existing is meaningless.
Horrible take.
So? It pays for itself.