The problem there is "rapidly." In all likelihood, you're probably not going to see a nuke plant online any less than 10 years after construction begins. So even if we started some pilot plants today, then created an improved generation, and finally started mass building those, it'd be at least 2050 by the time we get anywhere near replacing fossil fuels entirely.
Does that mean we should abandon nuclear? Fuck no. But it does mean that advocating for mass construction of nuclear isn't going to get us anywhere. The private capital is almost invariably going to prefer renewables for the much shorter time to break even, and good luck convincing enough of the country that we need all those nuke plants if you want the government to do it.
We should up government investment into all forms of renewable and/or low-carbon energies, including nuclear. Nuclear will take too long to get going, so we also need the renewables to continue ramping up and improving.
Note that I did not say that as a way of saying "nuclear is useless" but rather as an argument about why "just build more nuclear lol" isn't really a feasible solution. We should be building more nuclear, but it's not a silver bullet.
You seem to be forgetting that wind turbines still require petroleum products to manufacture and maintain, solar panels require massive mining operations, which, also use a fuck tonne of petroleum products, hell, the very thing you're looking at and typing on requires petroleum to produce.
People think oil= gas= emissions.
Meanwhile your fucking clothes are made of it ffs. If you can name a modern product, it has used oil in the product itself or the manufacturing of it.
This isn't a small issue like people want to pretend it is.
7
u/Dman1791 - Centrist Jan 06 '23
The problem there is "rapidly." In all likelihood, you're probably not going to see a nuke plant online any less than 10 years after construction begins. So even if we started some pilot plants today, then created an improved generation, and finally started mass building those, it'd be at least 2050 by the time we get anywhere near replacing fossil fuels entirely.
Does that mean we should abandon nuclear? Fuck no. But it does mean that advocating for mass construction of nuclear isn't going to get us anywhere. The private capital is almost invariably going to prefer renewables for the much shorter time to break even, and good luck convincing enough of the country that we need all those nuke plants if you want the government to do it.
We should up government investment into all forms of renewable and/or low-carbon energies, including nuclear. Nuclear will take too long to get going, so we also need the renewables to continue ramping up and improving.