• Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I’m not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

      We do both. This isn’t a binary choice.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.

        I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we’d just need to summon up the political will for it. I’m not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Well demand isn’t going to go down, and we’re going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear… Nothing lasts forever.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money and manpower are not infinite. Any money spent on one is a choice not to spend it on the other.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Money and manpower are not infinite.

          Functionally they are because different Capital Groups will chase different projects. For instance Bill Gates / TerraPower is heavily backing both Fusion and SMR Fission technology.

          Meanwhile other Capital Groups like Anschutz are piling money into Wind Farms then there’s yet other groups like Silicon Ranch pouring money into Solar Farms.

          It seems to have escaped the notice of most Netizens but the big money Capitalists have finally come out to play in the Green / Renewable Energy space. Sure there’s an absolute limit on the money and manpower that even they can afford but practically speaking those limits are so high that we’re unlikely to reach them.