22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels
22 Countries Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity in Push to Cut Fossil Fuels
The group, including Britain, France and the United States, said the agreement was critical to meeting nations’ climate commitments.
Given the high cost and long lead times involved, I'm incredibly dubious about this one actually happening.
With the price drop in renewables it just doesn’t make much sense economically
22Why are people down voting this? I ask sincerely. I would have assumed the same thing.
12It is an ideological thing with some people - it doesn’t matter what makes sense economically. You can find a comment on the same level as this one where someone is talking about lacking energy density. I value my time too high to start arguing against something I know is a bad faith argument and nothing will come of it.
3
they have been pledging a lot of stuff for the last 30 or more years.
ill believe anything when i see it heppening.
13it's just more power on top of existing sources.
5We have seen your previous pledges, we all know these are hollow promises.
2It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years. There also isn’t much overlap with the resources needed for cheaper solar and wind. I’m just glad that it’s not more natural gas “bridge” plants.
-2It’s worth noting that the high cost and long lead times are mostly just a US thing, many nations can go from inception to fully complete in three to five years.
I was curious about this claim and checked out the IAEA website and just checked random cointries and found several reactors that have been under construction for way longer.
I have never heard of a power plant or new reactor of an existing plant being build in that time frame. Do you have examples?
7The Soviets did that in the 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Russia#Reactors_in_operation
Also Japan did it as well with the BTR-4 design a bit later. That was the reactor type which had a melt down in Fukushima.
3Offhand Wolseong in Korea brought thier two new reactors online in five and seven years, and have a nationwide average of six years. Qinshan in China brought two new Candean reactors online in four and five years, with a nationwide average of five years aswell.
As the other commenter mentioned Japan has systemicly built reactors in four years, though Fukushima 2 does well to demonstrate the danger or just running old American designs forever given how much better the modern reactors at the plant did than the older ones.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105221.pdf
2
How short sighted. In a couple decades the same countries will try to find ways to unpollute their ground and water from the radiation leaking from all the wastw they produce
-8There are plenty of valid criticisms of nuclear, blind fearmongering isn’t necessary.
6Nuclear is far from perfect, but countries have been exploiting it successfully and safely. France has been using it for 50 years, 70% of their households' energy comes from it and it didn't turn the country into a toxic wasteland.
6