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.
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%....
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).
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.
It’s still not clear today what effect CO2 or fossil fuel usage has on us.
All of the above are significantly better than burning gas or coal - but nuclear is the clear winner from an CO2 and general availability perspective.
The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.
I assume you mean that sub 80% capacity nuclear has issues being cost effective (which I agree is true).
You could pair the baseload nuclear with renewables during peak times and reduce battery dependency for scaling and maintaining higher utilization.
Daytime you’re facing solar head to head which is already dropping wholesale rates. Off peak is mostly users seeking cheap electricity so demand at 2AM is going to fall if power ends up cheaper at noon. Which means nuclear needs to make most of its money from the duck curve price peaks. But batteries are driving down peak prices.
Actually cheap nuclear would make this far easier, but there’s no obvious silver bullet.
done harm to the ecosystems where they are installed. This is quite often overlooked and brushed aside.
There is no single method of generating electricity without downsides.
Maybe your just okay and willing to accept that kind of change. That's fine, just as some people are okay with the risk of nuclear, the use of land for solar/wind. But to just flat out deny that it has impact is just dishonest discourse at best
People build dams for many reasons not just electricity.
Having a reserve of rainwater is a big deal in California, Texas, etc. Letting millions of cubic meters more water flow into the ocean would make the water problems much worse in much of the world. Flood control is similarly a serious concern. Blaming 100% of the issues from dams on Hydropower is silly if outlawing hydropower isn’t going to remove those dams.
However you are conflating dam building with hydro generation.
Hydro is not evenly distributed and mostly tapped out outside of a few exceptions. Hydro literally can not solve the issue.
Even less so as AGW starts running meltwater sources dry.
Annual production from nuclear is getting passed by wind in 2025 and possibly 2024. So just this second it’s possibly #1 among wind, solar and nuclear but they are all well behind hydro.
Teslas run great on nuclear power, unlike fossil fuel ICE cars.
Even at this minute, Teslas are moving around powered by nuclear power.
Remember that every time you get in your Tesla that you're just a carbon offset for a spoiled billionaire.
So if Elon lives in a jet that flys 24/7 you're only very wrong. Since that's obviously not the case you're colossally and completely wrong.
Remember that the next time you try to make an argument that Tesla is not an incredible force for decarbonization.
PS: For context 2TW of solar can generate about 10% of global electricity. Production capacity will not stop at 2TW. All other forms of electricity are basically doomed, no matter what the GOP says about climate change.
But don’t get me wrong, anyone and everyone can fly their private jets if they can afford such things. They will already have generated enough taxes at that point that they’re offsetting thousands or millions of Prius drivers.
Yes, actually.
Other execs fly as needed because they recognize that in this wondrous age of the internet that teleconferencing can replace most in-person meetings. Somehow, only a supposed technology genius like Elon Musk thinks that in-person meetings required for everything.
Other execs also don't claim to be trying to save the planet while doing everything in their power to exploit its resources or destroy natural habitats.
Besides, electric vehicles still seem to be very impractical compared to normal cars, because they can't drive very far without needing a lengthy recharge.
So I think the eco-friendliness of electric vehicles is maybe like the full self-driving system: nice promises but no delivery.