Most of the comments here do not understand how democracies work. The green transition has cost Europe hundreds of billions to date in just direct subsidies and investments. Hundreds of billions more in indirect costs. Voters were told it would result in lower energy bills, but bills continue to skyrocket all over Europe. So they feel lied to now. Unless politicians make energy prices considerably cheaper, fast, voters are going to vote for cheaper production methods: gas and nuclear. Nuclear is better for the environment so it would behoove us to get ahead of this. If activists somehow prevent nations from building nuclear, the victory will be entirely pyrrhic. Voters will kill any more green transition investment and go right back to what they know is cheaper.
I highly doubt that anything nuclear will ever be considered cheap. On paper maybe, but then reality kicks in and projects suddenly take a decade or two longer than planned. Then we have to import fissile material, likely from Kasachstan, who have Putin’s shrivelled little dick so far down their throats. Nuclear will also never be insured. And these Microblocks everyone talks about as the next hot shit? None of those have been built yet. It’s a concept on paper.
The alternative is gas, so I hope we can make nuclear cheaper. Projects are completed far faster in Asia, so perhaps we could learn from them. This is the issue which climate activists don’t seem to understand. There is no 100% renewable scenario right now. We’re decades away cost effective grid scale storage technology to smooth volatility. In the mean time we need something to keep the lights on and (with some rare exceptions like locations suitable for hydro) it’s going to be coal, gas, or nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest of those, but I agree, there are challenges.
If people keep fighting against reducing energy bills, political sentiment is going to keep turning against green energy, and once we reach an inflection point in the EU (and we’re surprisingly close), there is going to be a wave of new coal and LNG projects all over Europe. Either we make electricity much cheaper RIGHT NOW, or we lose this political battle for a generation.
Most of the comments here do not understand how democracies work. The green transition has cost Europe hundreds of billions to date in just direct subsidies and investments. Hundreds of billions more in indirect costs. Voters were told it would result in lower energy bills, but bills continue to skyrocket all over Europe. So they feel lied to now. Unless politicians make energy prices considerably cheaper, fast, voters are going to vote for cheaper production methods: gas and nuclear. Nuclear is better for the environment so it would behoove us to get ahead of this. If activists somehow prevent nations from building nuclear, the victory will be entirely pyrrhic. Voters will kill any more green transition investment and go right back to what they know is cheaper.
For posterity, with more costs imputed (volatility, futures pricing, grid restructuring, storage, etc.), LNG is much cheaper than either solar or wind. Also no particulate pollution. In fact, if we were to go 100% renewables (solar and wind) or 100% nuclear, nuclear would be 4-5 times cheaper, and LNG would be up to 14 times cheaper.
I highly doubt that anything nuclear will ever be considered cheap. On paper maybe, but then reality kicks in and projects suddenly take a decade or two longer than planned. Then we have to import fissile material, likely from Kasachstan, who have Putin’s shrivelled little dick so far down their throats. Nuclear will also never be insured. And these Microblocks everyone talks about as the next hot shit? None of those have been built yet. It’s a concept on paper.
Nah. I’m not sold on this.
The alternative is gas, so I hope we can make nuclear cheaper. Projects are completed far faster in Asia, so perhaps we could learn from them. This is the issue which climate activists don’t seem to understand. There is no 100% renewable scenario right now. We’re decades away cost effective grid scale storage technology to smooth volatility. In the mean time we need something to keep the lights on and (with some rare exceptions like locations suitable for hydro) it’s going to be coal, gas, or nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest of those, but I agree, there are challenges.
If people keep fighting against reducing energy bills, political sentiment is going to keep turning against green energy, and once we reach an inflection point in the EU (and we’re surprisingly close), there is going to be a wave of new coal and LNG projects all over Europe. Either we make electricity much cheaper RIGHT NOW, or we lose this political battle for a generation.