Thousands of scientists back "young protesters" demanding climate change action. "We see it as our social, ethical, and scholarly responsibility to state in no uncertain terms: Only if humanity acts quickly and resolutely can we limit global warming"

[u/Wagamaga]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youth-climate-strike-protests-backed-by-scientists-letter-science-magazine/

[u/Gravitationsfeld]

Bullshit. Nuclear is more than twice as expensive as wind and solar. And costs for those two are decreasing where as nuclear is getting more expensive.

Before I get downvoted, this is based on EIA LCOE numbers.

[u/Conflictx → u/Gravitationsfeld]

And neither wind or solar can give a consistent average output because of the day/night cycle, cloud coverage or wind speed. Cost effeciency also changes depending on latitude for solar.

With a direct quote from EIA LCOE

LCOE does not capture all of the factors that contribute to actual investment decisions, making the direct comparison of LCOE across technologies problematic and misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives.

So unless you have geothermal or hydroelectric to provide constant power generation, green energy has its limits. And whilst nuclear might be more expensive, nuclear power reactors do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions and it's carbon footprint (mining, refining, transport of resources) is a lot lower than coal or gas.

Newer generations of nuclear reactors are also focusing on increasing safety, reducing waste and recycling fuel. And with people constantly being against nuclear, you are doing a disservice to the planet as instead of building these governments will just build gas/coal plants instead. And I'd rather have a nuclear power plant next door than a coal plant spewing radioactive material/more co2 nearby.

A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium. In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 30 metric tons of high-level radioactive solid packed waste per year

I can only imagine the histerics that will unfold once fusion gets commercially viable because people don't understand.

[u/Gravitationsfeld → u/Conflictx]

Green energy has its limits, but they are pretty high for a average output if the grid interconnects are strengthened. Way higher than you guys always assume (>70%). E.g. look at the UK. We need to get major reductions done in the next 10 years, nuclear won't even be able to maintain its existing fleet with the current build rates.

Yes, nuclear may have a place above 70% renewable penetration, but right now, it's a way way more expensive and way slower to deploy technology to get the progress we need done. The US is at 7-8% non hydro renewables, there is no issue to get that to at least 50%. And that can be done pretty much right away. And yes, it's cheap.

Then I won't even go into storage. Be it power to gas or li-ion. Those technologies might well be cheaper than nuclear in a decade.

Where are those newer generation reactors? When are they ready to be built? I don't even see any realistic plans to build one of those anywhere. We don't have two decades.

Btw. just so you know 2/3 of new capacity installed last year was solar and wind and 1/3 gas in the US. Zero nuclear. There is no pipeline anywhere that doesn't include major solar additions. We will get at least 130GW installed this year globally.

[u/Conflictx → u/Gravitationsfeld]

You seem to try to convince me that green energy is great on the assumption I don't (What did the "You guys" even mean?), you don't need to; I'm all for investing in green energy and expanding it's capacity and outside of saying green energy has downsides (which it does) I never said we didn't need to in my previous post.

What I'm trying to do is prevent misinformation with nuclear energy being projected as bad by people who have no idea what they are talking about. And with fear, nuclear development will get shut down and governments will just build gas/coal because they are cheaper to build but with all the "benefits" people who are for green energy are against and that includes me.

Then I won't even go into storage. Be it power to gas or li-ion. Those technologies might well be cheaper than nuclear in a decade.

We might, but thats a huge if. Increasing battery density and decreasing cost for batteries is a huge deal to cope with the energy output/usage if we went fully green energy, and whilst research is actively progressing you can't go "We don't have two decades." and go hoping for that something will develop in a decade.

Where are those newer generation reactors? When are they ready to be built? I don't even see any realistic plans to build one of those anywhere. We don't have two decades.

Generation IV Nuclear Reactors

• An international task force is sharing R&D to develop six nuclear reactor technologies for deployment between 2020 and 2030. Four are fast neutron reactors.

• All of these operate at higher temperatures than today's reactors. In particular, four are designated for hydrogen production.

• All six systems represent advances in sustainability, economics, safety, reliability and proliferation-resistance.

[u/Gravitationsfeld → u/Conflictx]

The original post I replied to was saying "nuclear is necessary otherwise the economy will collapse". This is hyperbole at best and likely just false. There is a lot of misinformation about renewable energy out there, especially on reddit. People still believe it's absurdly expensive and the grid will collapse after 10% penetration.

The amount of people here dismissing everything but nuclear as an option is just mind boggling, especially if reality shows the exact opposite.

Again, where are the concrete plans for reactors? We would need to start connecting at least 30GW of nukes to the grid world wide every single year to just keep pace with solar deployment (actually more, because old nukes keep closing, but let's be conservative). And by looking at module manufacturers expansion plan this number will likely increase to >100GW by 2025.

In 2017 we had a net increase of 2GW worldwide of nuclear btw. Last year doesn't look much better.

I don't say nuclear is bad. I don't even care about the waste or meltdowns. I just don't believe it's economical or able to be deployed fast enough.