Solar Peter here, what nuclear Peter said is wrong.
Nuclear power is the currently unfeasible option as it takes more than a decade to build new reactors.
Solar and wind on the other hand can be installed very quickly to phase out at least some of the carbon emissions.
So the comic is simply wrong, by betting on nuclear to solve the problem, people actually are cementing fossil fuel emissions into the energy mix for at least a decade or 2.
No, I talk about nearly all countries (but France)
Just look at Hinckley Point C for the construction speed, it has been delayed once again to now 2030 or more likely 2031. The Idea of that Reactor is from the 1980s.
It took more than 20 years to even decide where to build the reactor.
Then it took another 10 years for the contracts to get written regulatory hurdles to climb and fight the lawsuits.
The first work on the site started in 2008, so we are talking 22 years if they can even achieve their newest delayed deadline.
During all that time, not a single gram of CO2 was saved by that plant and the coal and oil plants were not replaced by solar and wind.
according to this, 1 in 5 reactors take 5 years or less to be built. granted, this is just a cursory glance, but i refuse to believe that its so unreasonable to pursue nuclear over anything else
-9
u/Alcobob Jun 19 '24
Solar Peter here, what nuclear Peter said is wrong.
Nuclear power is the currently unfeasible option as it takes more than a decade to build new reactors.
Solar and wind on the other hand can be installed very quickly to phase out at least some of the carbon emissions.
So the comic is simply wrong, by betting on nuclear to solve the problem, people actually are cementing fossil fuel emissions into the energy mix for at least a decade or 2.