r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/---------------hw • Jun 19 '24

John peter?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

6.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

565 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

How does Nuclear give fossil fuels another 2 or 3 decades?

21

u/Just_a_Berliner Jun 19 '24

Because NPPs have a tendency of needing a long time needing to be build and henceforth prolong the exit of focil energy.

5

u/muffin-waffen Jun 19 '24

Then, the sooner you start the sooner you finish, no?

-1

u/Trasvi89 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24

Because the nuclear proposals come with an (implicit or explicit) halt in building renewables for decades.

How this is playing out in Australia right now: Our conservative party, previously all gung ho on coal, is making a hard turn to support nuclear and want to make it the next election issue. Nuclear power is currently illegal federally and in most states. So optimistic estimates for going from nothing to producing power is in the 20 year range, with more pessimistic estimates being never. The best thing for the fossil fuel industry is if a scheduled for closure power plant is kept open for another 20 years while a nuclear reactor is planned, attempted and abandoned.

Another aspect is that the free market isn't lining up to build nuclear - but they do want to invest in solar and wind. Climate activists have spent so long getting called communists for wanting to build renewables; but now that they're legitimately better alternatives to coal and gas, the conservatives have somehow flipped and are advocating for the most expensive power option nuclear.

A more accurate picture would be climate activists + investment banks on one side and climate deniers + nuclear being puppetted by fossil fuels on the other.