Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it’s generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that’s factoring the cost of batteries.
Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it’s the better option a suspicious one.
Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn’t resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it’s still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.
Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.
Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn’t running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?
Fukushima’s too? Can you guarantee that things will be better managed in say… The US?
Lost us nuclear weapons - the crumbling silo infrastructure is also well documented. I’m sure that the Department of Energy will be able to afford better controls with it’s ~$30bn budget compared with the ~$700bn budget of the Department of Defence. It’s not as though the hundreds of nuclear weapons that have been lost nuclear are more dangerous than nuclear generators or anything.
Slower to build, more expensive, needs fuel dug out of the ground, potentially continent-destroying… Why?
Fukushima did not a fundemantel design flaw. Its was literally next to sea. Also renewables can never replace oil if they cant even store excess energy yet lmao
The plant wasn’t poorly designed, it just wasn’t designed to be where it was and nearly wiped out Tokyo as a consequence? This is an argument in favour of nuclear?
A lot of renewables don’t need storage - including geothermal, wind, tidal, salt solar, hydro… But photovoltaics with batteries is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear, takes a fraction of the time to build, is far safer, and is orders of magnitude more relisient against demand spikes.
Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.
The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.
Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it’s generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that’s factoring the cost of batteries.
Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it’s the better option a suspicious one.
Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn’t resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it’s still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.
Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.
Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn’t running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?
Roof of chernobyl was literally made out of wood
Fukushima’s too? Can you guarantee that things will be better managed in say… The US?
Lost us nuclear weapons - the crumbling silo infrastructure is also well documented. I’m sure that the Department of Energy will be able to afford better controls with it’s ~$30bn budget compared with the ~$700bn budget of the Department of Defence. It’s not as though the hundreds of nuclear weapons that have been lost nuclear are more dangerous than nuclear generators or anything.
Slower to build, more expensive, needs fuel dug out of the ground, potentially continent-destroying… Why?
Fukushima did not a fundemantel design flaw. Its was literally next to sea. Also renewables can never replace oil if they cant even store excess energy yet lmao
The plant wasn’t poorly designed, it just wasn’t designed to be where it was and nearly wiped out Tokyo as a consequence? This is an argument in favour of nuclear?
A lot of renewables don’t need storage - including geothermal, wind, tidal, salt solar, hydro… But photovoltaics with batteries is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear, takes a fraction of the time to build, is far safer, and is orders of magnitude more relisient against demand spikes.
…so why nuclear?
Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.
The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.
You failed to address Fukushima - and wind turbines don’t have the potential to render a continent uninhabitable.
Bullshit - solar costs a fraction of nuclear. this isn’t a remotely controversial statement.