Scientist argues that we cannot just wait for the world order to change to tackle the climate crisis

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@knor

@Klax

Yeah, electricity prices have to increase until someone has the political courage of the nuclear option.

Nuclear energy is an expensive way to produce electricity, at least the big plants. Wind or solar energy are already cheaper. The main problem with wind and solar energy is the storage of energy - much production during windy days, no production during calm nights. When that problem is solved, there is no need for nuclear energy on earth.

In northern Europe, production of electricity exceeds occasionally consumption, especially during windy periods - production of wind energy has increased much and is still increasing. During those hours, stock price of electricity is negative - someone pays you for consuming more electricity. Similar kind of situations may come in the future elsewhere, after the production of solar energy increases. It’s difficult to compete with that price.

How much do you charge for electricity when the wind doesn’t blow? As in California. With nuclear, as with everything else, economies of scale apply. Bigger is cheaper. 1600 MW up and running in no more than 12 years (5 if you get your skates on) for a century. Renewables without a nuclear backbone is not sustainable for the rest of the century. As Germany has found. Paving deserts with ethically produced (and recycled) solar is the long term strategy, with big enough capacity to produce hydrogen as storage for backup power as well as all transport heavier than cars and vans that can’t electrify (rail can). Only massive solar redundancy can perform the job Christianity has failed to do. Universal social justice. Nuclear is the essential step without which that cannot happen as soon as possible.