• Ertebolle
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y’know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I’m not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

      • Buelldozer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

        We do both. This isn’t a binary choice.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.

          I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well demand isn’t going to go down, and we’re going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear… Nothing lasts forever.

          • Buelldozer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we’d just need to summon up the political will for it. I’m not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Money and manpower are not infinite. Any money spent on one is a choice not to spend it on the other.

          • Buelldozer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Money and manpower are not infinite.

            Functionally they are because different Capital Groups will chase different projects. For instance Bill Gates / TerraPower is heavily backing both Fusion and SMR Fission technology.

            Meanwhile other Capital Groups like Anschutz are piling money into Wind Farms then there’s yet other groups like Silicon Ranch pouring money into Solar Farms.

            It seems to have escaped the notice of most Netizens but the big money Capitalists have finally come out to play in the Green / Renewable Energy space. Sure there’s an absolute limit on the money and manpower that even they can afford but practically speaking those limits are so high that we’re unlikely to reach them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Is there some reason for that? What makes nuclear power fundamentally different from all other human undertakings?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.