Renewable installations are growing at an incredible rate, a rate much much higher than older forms of generation.
Nuclear takes forever to build. I get the argument: it’s all the regulations. Ok, but when your plant can potentially cause centuries of problems if stuff goes wrong, it needs regulation. We know we can’t trust capitalism to make it safe.
It just makes sense based on their prices that renewables and storage are winning.
If he loses the presidential race, the GOP is gonna be in really, really bad shape.
Trump could, if we are lucky, be the death rattle of the Republican party.
In an ideal world, that could break us out of the two party system. We probably won’t get that lucky.
Unfettered capitalism.
Time to tax the corporations and the wealthy for their fair share again.
Want to solve almost all our problems? Redistribute wealth from the 1% who spend it on yachts to the rest of us to spend on healthcare, wages, etc.
Small business owner making 6 figures a year? I am not talking about you.
Spez, making 9 figures? That is who I am talking about and where the problem lies.
The only reason I put myself through these discussions is I used to be pro-nuclear. (And am not nearly as anti-nuclear as pro-nuclear people think me to be.) 😂
I don’t think I understand what you’re trying to say. I’m saying nuclear power requires mining to get the fuel. It’s just one negative point about the power source. I didn’t compare it to any other form of power generation in that regard.
Edit: I should have said “non-renewable form” - I’m listing it as a negative around nuclear because it’s not a (direct) negative in renewables.
One of the hallmarks of renewables has been that they are more easily distributed, so you don’t necessarily need big power plants. I think you may also be discounting the fact that renewables are far more distributed than previous forms of power generation. It doesn’t all have to be solved with giant installations and giant energy storage.
But again, if nuclear is honestly the cheapest option there, it would really surprise me. I just don’t get why so many people argue for this tech they couldn’t possibly use themselves that costs so much money when there are modern options that offer so many compelling benefits that you can distribute throughout the grid (or in big installations, either way!).
In any case, I catch a lot of downvotes.
I appreciated it. Felt like I was at a Trump rally.
We are in a thread about down votes, friend.
Ok, now how much of each do you have and how long have they been making that type of power generation?
My guess is that your renewable (solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc.) is both much newer and much less prevalent.
Every place on earth is going to have a different mix of requirements and available renewable energy. It will take different ways to fully transition to them.
If it is cheaper to build nuclear in your area than it is to build renewables and storage then I guess you should maybe consider that, even though I personally wouldn’t given its risks, you might make a different decision. My guess, however, is that you will find that renewables and storage are actually cheaper even in your area of the world. Maybe not, though.
You presented a highly unlikely scenario where there is no renewables generation “for days” with no explanation or caveats and intimated I didn’t understand something about it. I believe I understand your scenario and I don’t believe it’s likely or should be heavily weighted when trying to plan and deploy utility scale storage.
Did I outline things clearly or do you want to clarify anything?
I am NOT advocating for building non-renewables.
One of us presented their argument couched in an ad-hominem then claimed the other person was behaving badly after the response.
I personally feel like I am understanding this situation, but I could be wrong.
I don’t want any new coal plants ever. Not sure why you would think I did.
My reasoning is based on the about 80 years of history we have building these.
They did sort of standardize around some reactor designs, and nothing is or was stopping companies from forming consortiums to reducing R&D and manufacturing costs.
They have had 80 years to do it and they have not. Nuclear is very, very challenging power generation that has an easy side of runaway reaction, not a low cost mix of things.
Nuclear has had plenty of time to prove itself and to lower its costs. It has failed to do so and renewables and storage are now so cheap that nuclear no longer makes any real sense.
But yeah, I doubt we are changing each other’s minds.
One of us definitely doesn’t understand utility scale storage very much, that seems true.
Thank you for considering what I am saying. I really appreciate at least one person being open to thinking about their position.
I did not compare it to oil., coil or natural gas. I am not sure why you are using those as some kind of comparison or justification.
Yes, then deregulation really began, gutting our unions and thereby our trades. It robbed us of valuable experience for the benefit of a handful of wealthy people. It wasn’t a fair trade and we need to reverse it asap if we want to have a.futire as a society.
Fair criticism. I’ll think on this.
There are a lot of open source LLMs being developed, ones you can run at home on your own data.