Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from “mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear” to “all renewables”. Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it’s expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.
In Australia solar works so well and nuclear is so inappropriate* that now batteries are so cheap you don’t hear informed opinions other than renewables and batteries.
*because the Aussie grid on the east coast is a line north/south, and the population is too small, we can’t use the power of two reactors because too few people, we don’t want a solution where one generator is powering both Melbourne and Brisbane, with nuclear you need enough generators to be able to take one down completely for maintenance
Enrolled in an energy/“climate-focused” masters degree funded by British Petrol.
The only downside in nuclear is plants being a sensitive target in warfare.
And earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods, and any other unforeseen circumstance which will result in rising level of cancer and lowering life expectancy for generations in the centuries to come. But yes who cares?! Glowy thing go brrrrrrr!
No it’s not! It’s a minuscule step forward which will achieve no change whatsoever for the average person except an INCREASE in the amount of carcinogenic compounds in the atmosphere!
The massive step forward would be not needing boiling water and not needing to burn any fuel whatsoever to produce energy. That would be a “massive” step forward, not nuclear.
Nuclear isn’t exactly ‘burning fuel’, at least not in a traditional sense. But I guess you just mean that as ‘consuming a finite, non-renewable ressource’ which it still does.
No disagreement, I’m just here to nitpick that bit of phrasing.
Naw. I was once enrolled in an Energy/Climate-focussed Masters degree, and scientific consensus for the goal generally seemed to range from “mostly renewables + a tiny bit of nuclear” to “all renewables”. Nuclear feels like this amazing hack but it’s expensive, and the storage problem, while sometimes overstated, is also often understated or falsely misrepresented as solved.
In Australia solar works so well and nuclear is so inappropriate* that now batteries are so cheap you don’t hear informed opinions other than renewables and batteries.
*because the Aussie grid on the east coast is a line north/south, and the population is too small, we can’t use the power of two reactors because too few people, we don’t want a solution where one generator is powering both Melbourne and Brisbane, with nuclear you need enough generators to be able to take one down completely for maintenance
Enrolled in an energy/“climate-focused” masters degree funded by British Petrol. The only downside in nuclear is plants being a sensitive target in warfare.
Ah yes bp famously wants to replace all fossil fuels with renewables. good point /s
And earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods, and any other unforeseen circumstance which will result in rising level of cancer and lowering life expectancy for generations in the centuries to come. But yes who cares?! Glowy thing go brrrrrrr!
It’s talking about ignorance honestly, hidro has killed way more people.
You realise that death isn’t the only bad thing that can happen to you? I’d say crippling you and future generations for life is worse than death.
And that’s why replacing coal with fission is a massive step forwards!
No it’s not! It’s a minuscule step forward which will achieve no change whatsoever for the average person except an INCREASE in the amount of carcinogenic compounds in the atmosphere!
The massive step forward would be not needing boiling water and not needing to burn any fuel whatsoever to produce energy. That would be a “massive” step forward, not nuclear.
And btw, water vapour is a greenhouse gas too.
Nuclear isn’t exactly ‘burning fuel’, at least not in a traditional sense. But I guess you just mean that as ‘consuming a finite, non-renewable ressource’ which it still does.
No disagreement, I’m just here to nitpick that bit of phrasing.