• Yendor@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s too late to start new nuclear projects. The quickest Gen 3 reactor build in the US was 14 years. So starting now, you’re looking to finish near 2040. And for those 14 years of construction, you’re pumping huge amounts of CO2. Over its lifetime it will emit less CO2 than many other forms of power, but that’s too slow. We need to be reducing emissions now, not reducing emissions in the 2050s and beyond.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s literally never too late to start them. It’s too late for them, alone, to reverse the damage to the climate change but make no mistake that until we’re dead and buried it’s not too late to make more. The KW/h per measurement of CO2 that nuclear plants produce is incomprehensible. It surpasses even renewable energy, that causes pollution from the broken panels and other e-waste. Fission has always been the answer and it needs to be pushed through no matter how fucking late it is so they can then be repurposed into fusion based when we make that advancement.

      • Yendor@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The life-cycle emissions from nuclear are better than PV, but it’s still not as good as wind or hydro. But the issue is that it’s massively front loaded - you have huge emissions during construction that are slowly undone over the decades of operation. But we can’t afford to ramp up emissions for the next 14+ years (both the emissions of building a nuclear plant, and the fact that the existing coal/gas plants will have to run for another 14 years). If you switch to renewables, you can reduce emissions this year, not in the 2050s.

        And there is absolutely no way you’re going to repurpose a fission plant into a fusion plant. They have basically nothing in common apart from the name.

        • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This might be true for large reactors but I don’t think it will hold true with small modular reactors. We need the stability of nuclear too, as power demands overall rise.

          Renewables should definitely be a priority still, but nuclear shouldn’t be kicked out of the conversation.

    • Kage520@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What? Is there a good alternative? If we could magically make the world 100% renewable+nuclear in only 14 years that would be amazing I think. It would not solve everything, but sometimes it takes a bit to stop the bleeding before healing can start (carbon capture and planting trees during nuclear construction maybe?)

      Is there a faster way?

    • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not too late if we make small modular reactors a thing. Once you build one, every one after it will become cheaper and faster to build. Link 10-20 SMRs together and you could have a plant. Or just put 1 or 2 where they are most needed. SMRs are the future of nuclear, no doubt. But the current big reactors will mostly be around for a while, too.

    • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Regulatory overreach has made it 14 years to build nuclear plants. Almost all of which is interminable red tape. We should fix that, not pretend it’s a feature of the technology.