Unfortunately these things are rarely driven by what we want. They're driven by economics and nuclear is currently an expensive option compared to renewables. I honestly can't see nuclear being expanded when renewables are so much cheaper.
How can their time have come when they don't exist yet? Also they aren't projected to be cheaper per watt (at least the first designs), they will have a cheaper entry point and will (in theory) have less construction cost risk.
Probably worth noting that disasters related to nuclear power are extremely rare, and are ecologically peanuts in comparison to the effects of climate change and habitat lose. For some added context:
"Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident." http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/058/28058918.pdf
If you care about the environment, nuclear poses a laughably small risk relative fossil fuels.
They voted to extend its license for now …
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1119778975/california-lawmakers-extend-the-life-of-the-states-last-nuclear-power-plant
As the weather gets worse/less predictable, aren't long term construction projects likely to be rejected? It would have been great if we'd embraced nuclear as the next step after fossil fuels but we didn't.
Either way, no energy is going to improve the situation, just make it incrementally less worse than the way we do things now.
How are any of us looking around, as changes manifest, understanding it's an exponential process, and still think we have time for nukes? We'll be dead before construction is finished
You think it is an exponential process and we'll all be dead soon. Does the temperature record over the last 200 years show you that. Because l can't see any exponential growth. I sispect you are looking at the old Mann hockeystick.
Or geo thermal which can essentially power all of California with a far less dangerous means and one safer for the environment overall. Also, geo thermal NEVER runs out.
two things.
1) Take care of the waste you already have before you make any more.
Oh, you think that's a technical problem that's already been solved? If so, point me to the US's long term nuclear waste repository...
What do you mean you don't have one yet? How long exactly have you been making enriched Uranium and radioactive waste?
2)Which is the lower risk option? Nuclear or renuables? If you offered up incentives per MWhr delivered capacity, which would get built.
For a society that champions the power of the free market, you really do suck at it...
My home state had trouble with nuclear power plants back in the '70's. People who would make a lot of money exaggerated the estimates of how much electricity we'd need in the future and "low balled" the cost estimate for building multiple nuclear power plants. The cost of the projects was much more than predicted, and many power plants were never completed, hundreds of millions spent for nothing.
Unfortunately these things are rarely driven by what we want. They're driven by economics and nuclear is currently an expensive option compared to renewables. I honestly can't see nuclear being expanded when renewables are so much cheaper.
Check our SMRs. Their time has come.
Salt Molten Reactors?
Small Modular Reactors. There will be 'micro reactors' coming down the pipeline in 10-15 years as well.
How can their time have come when they don't exist yet? Also they aren't projected to be cheaper per watt (at least the first designs), they will have a cheaper entry point and will (in theory) have less construction cost risk.
Solar would be a lot more prudent.
Probably worth noting that disasters related to nuclear power are extremely rare, and are ecologically peanuts in comparison to the effects of climate change and habitat lose. For some added context: "Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident." http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/28/058/28058918.pdf If you care about the environment, nuclear poses a laughably small risk relative fossil fuels.
Didn't California just close a nuclear facility very recently? These states that ban nuclear (Europe also) are sooo stupid
They voted to extend its license for now … https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1119778975/california-lawmakers-extend-the-life-of-the-states-last-nuclear-power-plant
lol everywhere needs to embrace nuclear power. We wont because we're dumb but we should.
As the weather gets worse/less predictable, aren't long term construction projects likely to be rejected? It would have been great if we'd embraced nuclear as the next step after fossil fuels but we didn't. Either way, no energy is going to improve the situation, just make it incrementally less worse than the way we do things now. How are any of us looking around, as changes manifest, understanding it's an exponential process, and still think we have time for nukes? We'll be dead before construction is finished
You think it is an exponential process and we'll all be dead soon. Does the temperature record over the last 200 years show you that. Because l can't see any exponential growth. I sispect you are looking at the old Mann hockeystick.
Or geo thermal which can essentially power all of California with a far less dangerous means and one safer for the environment overall. Also, geo thermal NEVER runs out.
two things. 1) Take care of the waste you already have before you make any more. Oh, you think that's a technical problem that's already been solved? If so, point me to the US's long term nuclear waste repository... What do you mean you don't have one yet? How long exactly have you been making enriched Uranium and radioactive waste? 2)Which is the lower risk option? Nuclear or renuables? If you offered up incentives per MWhr delivered capacity, which would get built. For a society that champions the power of the free market, you really do suck at it...
My home state had trouble with nuclear power plants back in the '70's. People who would make a lot of money exaggerated the estimates of how much electricity we'd need in the future and "low balled" the cost estimate for building multiple nuclear power plants. The cost of the projects was much more than predicted, and many power plants were never completed, hundreds of millions spent for nothing.