The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants.
We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
Solar panels have limited lifespans as well and are difficult to recycle. Also the issue is not limited resources. Even if oil was infinite there would still be a problem as climate change is the issue, not reliability. Uranium reserves still have quite a bit left and if China’s breeder reactor programs work, uranium is less of an issue. Also, nobody here is advocating for switching entirely to nuclear. Nuclear is only really a good option for places that get unreliable sun and wind and for that it works pretty well, provided work is done now.
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan.
Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
You’re argument to not invest in infrastructure projects because it’s expensive is one of the single most moronic statements I have read in a long time. Of course maintenance of a power plant is going to be expensive. So is doing literally anything to fight climate change. There is no plan right now because any method of fighting climate change is entirely against the interests of the ruling class. There is no plan for major renewables infrastructure. There is no plan for any sort of decarbonization. There is no silver bullet here and reliance on any one sort of technology will without a doubt screw us over because every method has weaknesses. Nuclear power also does not need to be a stopgap, especially if you look at the way China is doing it, with rapid development alongside renewables and focusing on technology not to run out of uranium.
You’re argument to not invest in infrastructure projects because it’s expensive is one of the single most moronic statements I have read in a long time
That’s fucking cute coming from someone acting like their argument is being misunderstood. Absolute banger of a nonsense statement. I’d delete my entire account had I said something like this. You owe me an actual apology for this.
The issue is not merely that nuclear is “expensive”. It’s that any argument about the cost and necessity of maintenance of renewable energy sources applies equally if not more so to nuclear power. It is not “Being fair” to apply the issue of cost to renewable energy but not to nuclear power. It’s a selective application of a problem that exists more so for the thing you’re arguing for. It’s dishonest.
But on top of that any kind of responsible expansion of nuclear power requires infrastructure that we not only aren’t building because of cost, but won’t build because it is a gigantic political hot potato with incredibly vast implications.
Permanent nuclear waste storage does not exist. The closest is a facility in Finland that’s been “almost built” for decades.
Edit: And that’s not even getting into the fact that expanding nuclear power capacity would take as long as expanding renewable capacity. It’s a non solution to the issue.
Nuclear power also does not need to be a stopgap,
It literally fucking does. That’s… the entire environmentalist argument for nuclear. What the fuck are you smoking.
The reason nuclear power can even be defended is that it is a superior alternative environmentally to fossil fuels, not that it can serve as a permanent replacement to other sources of energy.
Nuclear waste storage is not an issue. High level waste is safety contained today in facilities and construction of waste facilities is solely a matter of political will. We have the technology and waste storage of high level material is not a critical issue. Furthermore, the decision to solely focus on nuclear waste from reactors is deeply unserious. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste and the medical industry generates far more nuclear waste than power does. This stampede against helpful technically accomplishes no good whatsoever. Anti nuclear activists in Germany successfully fought for the climate by shutting down nuclear plants and letting the government further cement it’s reliance on coal. Rallying against useful, viable, albeit imperfect technology (as all technologies are) is phenomenaly counterproductive and unserious.
The answer to this is a resounding “it depends”
The answer is actually “We can’t burn a limited resource to escape our reliance on limited resources”. There is no “This depends” There’s a side that’s wrong (The “Nuclear is a solution” side) and there is a side that’s not wrong.
To be fair renewables rely on nonrenewable steel and rare earth metals as well
No that’s not being fair. There is a difference between the resources needed to build something, and lighting a limited resource on fire for fuel. Especially when you still need to build the nuclear power plants. We literally can’t switch to all nuclear right now, if we do we run out of fuel in a presidential term.
Solar panels have limited lifespans as well and are difficult to recycle. Also the issue is not limited resources. Even if oil was infinite there would still be a problem as climate change is the issue, not reliability. Uranium reserves still have quite a bit left and if China’s breeder reactor programs work, uranium is less of an issue. Also, nobody here is advocating for switching entirely to nuclear. Nuclear is only really a good option for places that get unreliable sun and wind and for that it works pretty well, provided work is done now.
Here is the list of total places that don’t have access to wind, solar, water, or geothermal power but does have access to permanent nuclear waste storage:
End of list
That’s before we even get into the notion of reliable and cheap access to nuclear fuel. If we’re going to talk about logistics, we should actually talk about the enormous logistics required for any kind of major expansion of nuclear power that isn’t happening, won’t happen, and for which there is no plan. Not to mention the fact that maintenance of nuclear facilities is also costly. It’s not a problem unique to or especially incumbent upon renewable energy. The attempts to “be fair” here, are just regurgitating conservative arguments for fossil fuels, except the idea here is to create a gigantic infrastructure project for an intentional stopgap that would take so long to actually build we could also just build the fucking renewable capacity.
It genuinely cannot be overstated how much nuclear is just a distraction at this point.
You’re argument to not invest in infrastructure projects because it’s expensive is one of the single most moronic statements I have read in a long time. Of course maintenance of a power plant is going to be expensive. So is doing literally anything to fight climate change. There is no plan right now because any method of fighting climate change is entirely against the interests of the ruling class. There is no plan for major renewables infrastructure. There is no plan for any sort of decarbonization. There is no silver bullet here and reliance on any one sort of technology will without a doubt screw us over because every method has weaknesses. Nuclear power also does not need to be a stopgap, especially if you look at the way China is doing it, with rapid development alongside renewables and focusing on technology not to run out of uranium.
That’s fucking cute coming from someone acting like their argument is being misunderstood. Absolute banger of a nonsense statement. I’d delete my entire account had I said something like this. You owe me an actual apology for this.
The issue is not merely that nuclear is “expensive”. It’s that any argument about the cost and necessity of maintenance of renewable energy sources applies equally if not more so to nuclear power. It is not “Being fair” to apply the issue of cost to renewable energy but not to nuclear power. It’s a selective application of a problem that exists more so for the thing you’re arguing for. It’s dishonest.
But on top of that any kind of responsible expansion of nuclear power requires infrastructure that we not only aren’t building because of cost, but won’t build because it is a gigantic political hot potato with incredibly vast implications. Permanent nuclear waste storage does not exist. The closest is a facility in Finland that’s been “almost built” for decades.
Edit: And that’s not even getting into the fact that expanding nuclear power capacity would take as long as expanding renewable capacity. It’s a non solution to the issue.
It literally fucking does. That’s… the entire environmentalist argument for nuclear. What the fuck are you smoking. The reason nuclear power can even be defended is that it is a superior alternative environmentally to fossil fuels, not that it can serve as a permanent replacement to other sources of energy.
Nuclear waste storage is not an issue. High level waste is safety contained today in facilities and construction of waste facilities is solely a matter of political will. We have the technology and waste storage of high level material is not a critical issue. Furthermore, the decision to solely focus on nuclear waste from reactors is deeply unserious. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste and the medical industry generates far more nuclear waste than power does. This stampede against helpful technically accomplishes no good whatsoever. Anti nuclear activists in Germany successfully fought for the climate by shutting down nuclear plants and letting the government further cement it’s reliance on coal. Rallying against useful, viable, albeit imperfect technology (as all technologies are) is phenomenaly counterproductive and unserious.