Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by jhayward on Friday April 02, 2021 @04:31PM (#26675642)

I simply don't understand those people who claim to want to fix the problem but insist on only getting 1/10th the electricity for their invested dollar, and at a schedule 10x slower than renewables. It's like they are being deliberately obtuse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by redwall_hp on Saturday April 03, 2021 @03:23PM (#26683923)

I see two options:

1. They're ignorant and follow a fallacious "appeal to nature" mentality. They seriously think that some sort of return to nature will result in a utopia instead of disease and famine.

2. They're Malthus apologists who want to cause an energy crisis and cause people (who aren't them) to die.

It also overlaps with the anti-GMO types.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by effie on Friday April 02, 2021 @04:54PM (#26675881)

It's not about money, but about replacing the coal and gas power plants. Renewable sources can't do that alone, they need massive energy storage facilities (which so far do not exist).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standar... by ldbooth on Friday April 02, 2021 @06:03PM (#26676438)

Because storage isn't tax credit incentivized, at least in the US. Coal still is. And FYI California will install 1.3GW of storage this year, and a storage tax credit is likely by end of this year. It's coming. Hopefully we find something more elegant or ways to recycle storage/battery materials.

[ Parent | on HN ]