19 ms·

Nuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate change.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
Are you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in them? Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.
- mbernstein 2y ago
  Of course not.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Why not? We just need to use Mr Fusion in everything https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    In a world where nuclear power helped with climate change, would also be a world where Teslas would eliminate a good chunk of harmful pollution by allowing cars to be moved by nuclear, so not sure what point you were trying to make. Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by nuclear power.
Retric 2y ago
Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity. It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.
  - mbernstein 2y ago
    When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power. She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous" https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%20insight%20is%20that,solar%20are%20just%20as%20safe https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%.... CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very safe).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - chgs 2y ago
      She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.
      - UltraSane 2y ago
        [dead]
  - Retric 2y ago
    I agree costs could have dropped significantly, but I doubt 100% nuclear was ever going to happen. Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.
porphyra 2y ago
I think solar is a lot cheaper than nuclear, even if you factor in battery storage.

Are you proposing that cars should have nuclear reactors in them? Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.

mbernstein 2y ago
Of course not.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Why not? We just need to use Mr Fusion in everything https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Mr._Fusion
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  In a world where nuclear power helped with climate change, would also be a world where Teslas would eliminate a good chunk of harmful pollution by allowing cars to be moved by nuclear, so not sure what point you were trying to make. Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by nuclear power.

Retric 2y ago

Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity. It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.

UltraSane 2y ago
That just goes to show how incredibly short sighted humanity is. We new about the risk of massive CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels but just ignored it while irrationally demonizing nuclear energy because it is scawy. If humans were sane and able to plan earth would be getting 100% of all electricity from super-efficient 7th generation nuclear reactors.
- mbernstein 2y ago
  When talking to my parents, I hear a lot about Jane Fonda and the China Syndrome as far as the fears of nuclear power. She's made the same baseless argument for a long time: "Nuclear power is slow, expensive — and wildly dangerous" https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%20insight%20is%20that,solar%20are%20just%20as%20safe https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy#:~:text=The%20key%.... CO2 issues aside, it's just outright safer than all forms of coal and gas and about as safe as solar and wind, all three of which are a bit safer than hydro (still very safe).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - chgs 2y ago
    She’s two thirds right. It’s slow and expensive.
    - UltraSane 2y ago
      [dead]
- Retric 2y ago
  I agree costs could have dropped significantly, but I doubt 100% nuclear was ever going to happen. Large scale dams will exist to store water, tacking hydroelectric on top of them is incredibly cost effective. Safety wise dams are seriously dangerous, but they also save a shocking number of lives by reducing flooding.

porphyra 2y ago

I think solar is a lot cheaper than nuclear, even if you factor in battery storage.