"It's time to embrace nuclear energy" is a call to action that reflects the urgent need for sustainable and reliable energy solutions in the face of climate change. Nuclear energy offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, providing consistent power output and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While concerns about safety, waste management, and initial costs remain valid, advancements in technology, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and improved waste recycling techniques, are making nuclear energy safer and more efficient. Investing in nuclear energy can complement renewable sources like wind and solar, ensuring a balanced and resilient energy grid. Embracing nuclear energy is not about replacing renewables but integrating it into a diversified strategy to meet global energy demands sustainably. The focus should be on innovation, public education, and robust regulatory frameworks to address concerns and unlock nuclear energy's full potential as part of the solution to the world's energy and environmental challenges.
Dea-scéala. Is féidir linn go léir é a dhéanamh má dhéanaimid iarracht. Is éard is imoibreoir salainn leáite (MSR) ann aicme imoibreora eamhnaithe núicléach inar meascán de shalann leáite le hábhar inscoilte an príomhfhuarthóir imoibreora núicléach agus/nó an breosla. Chomh maith leis sin.
Building these plants + costs/payments for that, need first to be produced, causing more CO2 .. that is clsoe to a perpetuum mobile. We build plants from taxes, which only can be paid, when fossile energy is used, to produce the money. In addition, the time to build one plant - where one does not help at all. We need 400 minimum per country - in the moment 2-3 are built - worldwide. Same problem for fusion-reactors.
How long since three mile Island?, the materials technology has advanced Alot in the intervening decades. I think it's long past due, as meltdown proof reactor designs Are available, RTGs and micro reactors, like on submarines and aircraft carriers.
Space based solar arrays .........cheaper .....safer..............Dramatically less investment ............almost infinite energy ! We now have cheap orbital abilities.............why go backwards to the catastrophe and explosive costs that is Nuclear !
@@ferkeap I don't know why but construction costs in the West always goes beyond the wildest imaginations. I think the latest two examples are in France and the UK. Even after they have been built the maintenance costs is so crazy it is often cheaper to close it down and use fossil fuels instead. For example the San Onofre nuclear plant was more expensive to maintain than to close down and use fossil. Nuclear always looks good on paper but reality is quite different.
"It's time to embrace nuclear energy" is a call to action that reflects the urgent need for sustainable and reliable energy solutions in the face of climate change. Nuclear energy offers a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, providing consistent power output and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While concerns about safety, waste management, and initial costs remain valid, advancements in technology, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and improved waste recycling techniques, are making nuclear energy safer and more efficient. Investing in nuclear energy can complement renewable sources like wind and solar, ensuring a balanced and resilient energy grid.
Embracing nuclear energy is not about replacing renewables but integrating it into a diversified strategy to meet global energy demands sustainably. The focus should be on innovation, public education, and robust regulatory frameworks to address concerns and unlock nuclear energy's full potential as part of the solution to the world's energy and environmental challenges.
The problem is the price of constructing nuclear power plants. They always go at least 100% over budget.
Prices will be trivial in comprehension to the costs we have to face because of climate change.
@ yes but most of us will be dead then so getting our heads around paying tens of billions for nuclear power plants is a bit of a stretch.
Maybe in The US, that's just because of the lack of current nuclear skills
This is not the price, it's one price.
Nuclear has upfront cost, but it is cheap if financed normally.
And yet, no orders unless there is a substantial government subsidy.
What does that suggest?
Thorium use is a good idea, cause it can solve the shortage of uranium.
Auf jeden Fall.
Dea-scéala. Is féidir linn go léir é a dhéanamh má dhéanaimid iarracht. Is éard is imoibreoir salainn leáite (MSR) ann aicme imoibreora eamhnaithe núicléach inar meascán de shalann leáite le hábhar inscoilte an príomhfhuarthóir imoibreora núicléach agus/nó an breosla. Chomh maith leis sin.
Building these plants + costs/payments for that, need first to be produced, causing more CO2 .. that is clsoe to a perpetuum mobile. We build plants from taxes, which only can be paid, when fossile energy is used, to produce the money.
In addition, the time to build one plant - where one does not help at all.
We need 400 minimum per country - in the moment 2-3 are built - worldwide.
Same problem for fusion-reactors.
How long since three mile Island?, the materials technology has advanced Alot in the intervening decades. I think it's long past due, as meltdown proof reactor designs Are available, RTGs and micro reactors, like on submarines and aircraft carriers.
Space based solar arrays .........cheaper .....safer..............Dramatically less investment ............almost infinite energy !
We now have cheap orbital abilities.............why go backwards to the catastrophe and explosive costs that is Nuclear !
no
Nuclear energy? No, no, no, thanks!
So can we get nuclear power to be less than a magnitude, 10x, the cost of coal? I don't think so...
Not of any relevance when we have to face the costs of climate change soon.
Why.
@@ferkeap I don't know why but construction costs in the West always goes beyond the wildest imaginations. I think the latest two examples are in France and the UK. Even after they have been built the maintenance costs is so crazy it is often cheaper to close it down and use fossil fuels instead. For example the San Onofre nuclear plant was more expensive to maintain than to close down and use fossil. Nuclear always looks good on paper but reality is quite different.