Nuclear is a good middle step to full renewable, it’s not the end goal. There’s not enough storage capacity right now for energy usage at night, which is where nuclear can fill the gap until efficient energy storage can be achieved.
There is a lot of investment in energy storage solutions. Everyone knows how critically important energy storage is for our climate change present and future, and whoever develops the best and most scalable solution first will make billions of dollars.
Nuclear fission doesn’t get that much investment afaik due to overblown radiation fears, while safe cold fusion is the real end goal of energy generation and deserves more investment than it gets now.
Got a source? I’m genuinely curious about that, since I know cold fusion has been long considered the holy grail of energy generation. I just want to hope that it isn’t mere science fiction now :(
China built 37 of them in the last 10 years according to the article. It doesn’t take forever, it just takes foresight and planning, which most of the Western world lacks beyond the next quarter profits lol.
The baseline capacity nuclear provides can get evolving countries like China out of the fossil fuel phase, which is critically important. I don’t know what your problem is with nuclear, it’s been a relatively safe and stable form of energy generation that’s far better than any fossil fuel.
Edit: and I just read the top comment in the thread that they’re building a fuckton of coal plants too. Damn it.
Nuclear is 100% the future. It provides the highest energy density (i.e. it produces the most kwh/square mile), and is also the safest and most environmentally friendly form of power generation we have right now. The downside is the amount of time it takes to bring reactors online. Make no mistake, the time cost is a feature, not a bug. There are phenomenally stringent requirements and QC checks that must be met in order to ensure public and environmental safety. However, this also means that nuclear is not the solution right now. What we should be doing is constructing wind, solar, tidal, etc. plants to transition away from fossil fuels in the immediate future, while simultaneously beginning construction on nuclear plants, so we can eventually transition to those.
Nuclear is a good middle step to full renewable, it’s not the end goal. There’s not enough storage capacity right now for energy usage at night, which is where nuclear can fill the gap until efficient energy storage can be achieved.
I wonder what kind of storage solutions we could have today if we were investing as much into it as into nuclear fusion and fission…
There is a lot of investment in energy storage solutions. Everyone knows how critically important energy storage is for our climate change present and future, and whoever develops the best and most scalable solution first will make billions of dollars.
Nuclear fission doesn’t get that much investment afaik due to overblown radiation fears, while safe cold fusion is the real end goal of energy generation and deserves more investment than it gets now.
Uh I read somewhere that “cold fusion” was just an error in the simulations/calculations
Got a source? I’m genuinely curious about that, since I know cold fusion has been long considered the holy grail of energy generation. I just want to hope that it isn’t mere science fiction now :(
Mate?
Nuclear takes forever to build, we could pump out a million storage solutions before enough nuclear was built.
Nuclear is the complete opposite of a middle ground.
China built 37 of them in the last 10 years according to the article. It doesn’t take forever, it just takes foresight and planning, which most of the Western world lacks beyond the next quarter profits lol.
The baseline capacity nuclear provides can get evolving countries like China out of the fossil fuel phase, which is critically important. I don’t know what your problem is with nuclear, it’s been a relatively safe and stable form of energy generation that’s far better than any fossil fuel.
Edit: and I just read the top comment in the thread that they’re building a fuckton of coal plants too. Damn it.
What storage solution are you thinking of.
Nuclear is 100% the future. It provides the highest energy density (i.e. it produces the most kwh/square mile), and is also the safest and most environmentally friendly form of power generation we have right now. The downside is the amount of time it takes to bring reactors online. Make no mistake, the time cost is a feature, not a bug. There are phenomenally stringent requirements and QC checks that must be met in order to ensure public and environmental safety. However, this also means that nuclear is not the solution right now. What we should be doing is constructing wind, solar, tidal, etc. plants to transition away from fossil fuels in the immediate future, while simultaneously beginning construction on nuclear plants, so we can eventually transition to those.