Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wheels405 t1_ivryczu wrote

Reply to comment by WoWMHC in The climate crisis explained in 10 charts by HenryCorp

All three technologies have tradeoffs. Each is part of the solution, none is the entire solution. Nuclear is too slow to build to address the problem on its own.

1

WoWMHC t1_ivrzr2l wrote

That’s exactly why I said along side. We’re not solving any long term energy requirements without nuclear.

3

peffervescence t1_ivsblo0 wrote

One thing I often remind people is how many USN ships use nuclear power, how long they’ve been in the fleet, and how many accidents they’ve had. We have the technology.

3

Craygor t1_ivtqdb0 wrote

Construction might be a bit longer than a coal plant, but the amount of energy is huge and they can have an operating service life of over a hundred years until needing replacing. ,

1

wheels405 t1_ivtvwfy wrote

I support nuclear as part of the solution. But its construction time should be compared to the construction time of other renewables, not to the construction time of coal plants.

1

No-Asparagus6190 t1_ivxiy9o wrote

The thing is, nuclear plants haven't really been build all that much. When Voglte 3 in Georgia goes Critical in December it will be the first new plant in decades. We can pump out nuclear but the problem is they're very expensive and time consuming since we don't have the industrial infrastructure, so to speak. The more we build, the cheaper and quicker they can be built, we just need a few more people to take that leap.

1