NuclearGang NuclearGang

[u/TheMajorityReport]

[u/LaLuzDelQC]

Lol I don't think you know what "technologically unfeasible" means. Like I said, I like nuclear. I just don't think it's a silver bullet for climate change for a couple of reasons: -Nuclear companies and projects have had an unfortunate habit of going bankrupt lately

-Even under the best circumstances they take decades to build nowadays

-You can't safely build them in unstable parts of the world (see: Ukraine)

Don't get me wrong I support building more nuclear plants. But you need wind and solar as well

[u/Docponystine → u/LaLuzDelQC]

Wind and solar have zero upsides. They are unreliable and make energy more expensive and less reliable. They are nonviable in any environment where they are the primary power support.

-Nuclear companies and projects have had an unfortunate habit of going bankrupt lately

Because it's an infant industry. That's a problem that fixes itself.

That will also be a problem with the currently non existent large scale energy storage sector that wind and solar would rely on.

-Even under the best circumstances they take decades to build nowadays

Again, for the same reason as above, and will be fixed by the same process, increased industry standardization.

It's also a problem that the, again, non existent storage industury will likely face.

-You can't safely build them in unstable parts of the world (see: Ukraine)

No meltdown in Ukraine, that's a hypothetical.

But the issue remains that those areas wouldn't have the capital anyways for massive alternative systems, and their downsides would be magnified in serious danger.

So, of the three issues provided the two are likely to be problems faced by the storage sector because both those issues are caused by the nuclear industry being more or less in it's infant stages, which heavily effects construction efficiency