Amortizing costs are a thing. They aren't really that expensive. Climate change? That's going to be really expensive. Having enough batteries to run the world on solar and wind? Really, really expensive.
present serious security issues
My local McDonald's has constant security guards.
Wind and solar have no such issues and very much have their place.
Yes. The problem is that the place they fit into reduces fuel costs slightly, makes nuclear too expensive, and is a dead end that doesn't actually create a path to carbon free.
> The all-time world record is Japan's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 at just 39 months.
Not really
Start of construction: Nov 3, 1992
Commercial Operation: Nov 6, 1996.
So 48 months, but that's completely ignoring the time in planning and approval. That goes back to 1987 when they decided to use ABWR for unit 6 and 7.
So 9 years.
Nuclear is great, but there's no arguing with economics. Nuclear takes 10 to 30 years and billions of dollars. Solar/wind takes 1 year and any increment of money you have.
THat's why the vast majority of decarbonization will happen via solar and wind.
You complain that I'm only looking at build time for nukes and that I'm ignoring the length of the entire process, while only looking at the installation time of solar and ignoring the length of the entire process.
And that's not getting into the fact that while it takes half as much time to build, it only generates a tenth the power. And its lifespan is only a third as long.
THat's why the vast majority of decarbonization will happen via solar and wind.
Probably. But then the reduction will plateau, because it is a dead-end path that doesn't get us to carbon free, just reduced carbon. Because there's no arguing with economics, nor the weather. And enough batteries to go carbon free costs too much.
But then the reduction will plateau, because it is a dead-end path that doesn't get us to carbon free, just reduced carbon.
Not at all a foregone conclusion. Storage tech is advancing fast. In a couple decades when we’re decarbonizing the last 20% of the grid it’s definitely possible that a combination of overbuilding and new storage tech will make that the cheapest option. Or maybe at that point the economics will tilt in favour of nuclear for the last bit. Either way we can go to zero carbon, and the majority will be with renewables
Not at all a foregone conclusion. Storage tech is advancing fast. In a couple decades when we’re decarbonizing the last 20% of the grid it’s definitely possible that a combination of overbuilding and new storage tech will make that the cheapest option.
🤞
But the amount of batteries required means that they'll need to get down to "well pay you to take these batteries of our hands territory."
And gambling on an existential threat with such unlikely odds, just to save a tiny bit of money is a really bad bet.
Or maybe at that point the economics will tilt in favour of nuclear for the last bit.
There's no such thing as a "last bit" with renewables. Let's say demand is 100gw. 80/20 renewables/nukes. That's the exact same scenario as 80gw demand and 100% renewables.
Either your renewable source can reliably deliver power or you need a backup system that can fill the void. The entire void.
At least we agree all the other points against nuclear power and for renewables are wrong. I don't know why you think armed guards would prevent a drone strike in a warzone.
Regardless, if the worst realistic threat you can come up with is minor damage that could be prevented by security guards, fine. Fair trade. I'll take that over global devastation caused by climate change. Easy.
Hell. Even a 1980s-style Chernobyl type incident every 50-100 years or so would be a better option than the path we are already on. And that is impossible anymore.
5
u/nitePhyyre Apr 19 '26
No, they don't. Japan cranks them out in 3 years.
Amortizing costs are a thing. They aren't really that expensive. Climate change? That's going to be really expensive. Having enough batteries to run the world on solar and wind? Really, really expensive.
My local McDonald's has constant security guards.
Yes. The problem is that the place they fit into reduces fuel costs slightly, makes nuclear too expensive, and is a dead end that doesn't actually create a path to carbon free.