Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LouSanous t1_jdam1un wrote

Reply to comment by silentsnip94 in IPCC chart says Solar PV and Wind Turbines are best way to achieve Deep, Rapid, and Low Cost emission cuts before 2030. by DisasterousGiraffe

In theory, if it was commercially available and could be built out in less than 2 decades, sure

Neither of those things are true though.

New Nuclear should be confined to the laboratory until we have decarbonized, then we can build a nice shiny new reactor that has all the bugs worked out and uses some super common fuel like thorium once the existing renewables start to reach their end of life.

It probably has a place in that future, but going after it now doesn't make any sense. We have serious problems that require immediate solutions and nuke just ain't it.

7

pinkfootthegoose t1_jde7l7s wrote

> once the existing renewables start to reach their end of life.

renewables don't reach an end of life. That's the point.

1

LouSanous t1_jdg4ae2 wrote

Solar panels have a lifespan. Anything with moving parts has a lifespan. That includes wind turbines.

1

pinkfootthegoose t1_jdg4xbv wrote

so do nuclear plants so to there is no net gain from building those over priced messes.

1

LouSanous t1_jdg68c8 wrote

I agree. I would only consider nuclear in the event that there was some new reactor that could burn spent waste, reducing the half life of it, used no water for cooling and had minimal or no meltdown risk. We have solutions now to these problems that don't involve nuclear

1