Nuclear is about 4% of energy production now, fossil is 80%. I have some doubts that a 20 fold increase in nuclear is desirable.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:37 pmIsn't "green" really just shorthand for "low CO2 producing" rather than "able to create a utopian world where everyone is vegan and the bunnies are fluffy".
Nuke is "green" in terms of its in-use pollution generation, especially CO2. Not so "green" during the build phase or during decommissioning, of course. It's also jolly safe in terms of lives lost.
Yes. But yeah, otherwise they give it to farmers.
Actually, weird as it may sound, fossil fuels are still subsidized. (By about 300 billion in 2017 according to the IMF.... https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... as/589000/)DChemTech wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:19 pmYes. But yeah, otherwise they give it to farmers.
I'd rather see fair, pollution-including prices on fossil fuels, and no structural subsidies on alternatives (development subsidies is something else, but conventional nuclear is mature tech). Let the market sort that out; if the pollution-pricing is fair, wind and solar should be properly competitive in most cases. Not sure if nuclear is considered feasible then, due to the high construction costs.
You forgot contagieus diseases. Last 2 years have showed us everything is possible.Sieper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:09 pmRussia is now placing troops, tanks, artillery ON the Zaporizhia Nuclear power plant terrain. So they have a free firing base that nobody can touch.
It is a consideration when building these things. They are vulnerable in war time.
A few years ago I thought war in developed countries was just economical not feasible anymore. But apparently war is still always an option.
Isnt there only for about 100 years of nuclear material for use in plants? So it is just a stop gap measure, but not much more.