• YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The time to create nuclear plants is far lower than what you quoted

    The average construction time is 7 years. I quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency. I think they know what they’re talking about.

    and we’re still sitting here fucking debating whether we should start.

    That’s fine, I get you’re passionate about nuclear and that’s good, it’s better to be passionate about that than coal or gas. But you’re not going to ‘encourage’ anyone by hurling insults at them, are you?

    Also, your data is out of date. The LCOE of Nuclear is getting more expensive, not less. Wind is now the cheapest:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

    And solar now has the fewest deaths per unit of electricity:

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

    Look, I get that nuclear probably has its place. But you need to understand that renewables are rapidly becoming the option for carbon emission reduction, and that the evidence supports this. They’re doing this so quickly that by the time we start the process of constructing a NPP now, they will be even better by the time the plant goes into operation. Your point about how we should have started earlier is a valid one but, for a multitude of reasons, that isn’t the world we live in. So why spend time and money trying to change the global attitude towards nuclear when we can spend the same time and money building an arguably better solution that is almost unanimously agreed to be more effective right now?