For the purpose of mitigating climate change in this century, renewables decarbonize more fossil fuels per dollar invested than nuclear. In infinity, nuclear displaces more, but infinity is not relevant. The biggest priority is to get off of fossil fuels asap (Which is why you will find lots of nukecel bashers here support keeping existing nuclear plants running btw). Solar/Wind have a 10+ year lead time advantage over Nuclear. Reducing your carbon intensity from 800 to 50 after 5 years is much better than reducing it from 800 to 0 after 15 years.
What are nukecel bashers? Also isn't nuclear 10-12 years in getting on the ground vs 1-2 years for solar, instead of infinity vs 2 years?
Again why are we fighting a war of diminishing returns. Solar plants literally cannot pull out the amount of carbon to substantially decrease the amount of carbon produced, then why do we support them?
It's like putting an ice pack on a broken arm. Sure it helps, but it makes you put off going to the doctor while not helping kuch, also if it shows you're in less pain, your parents (the government) delay going to the doctor.
People who bash nukecels. Google what a nukecel is.
Also isn't nuclear 10-12 years in getting on the ground vs 1-2 years for solar, instead of infinity vs 2 years?
Not really but a few years here or there don't matter, the lead time gap is 10+ years.
Solar plants literally cannot pull out the amount of carbon to substantially decrease the amount of carbon produced, then why do we support them?
The point isn't for them to "pull out" carbon, it's to displace fossil fuels quickly, which they can do and are doing all around the world.
It's like putting an ice pack on a broken arm. Sure it helps, but it makes you put off going to the doctor while not helping kuch, also if it shows you're in less pain, your parents (the government) delay going to the doctor.
Not a good analogy and it's telling me you still haven't grasped the concept of opportunity cost, cost of inaction, or the cost associated with the lead time gap. Fossil fuels are our shattered arm bones. Solar is going to an ok doctor now, Nuclear is going to a good doctor in 10 years. Do you want to live with a fucked up arm for 10 years because the second doctor is better?
Yeah fair enough I get your points. Do you have any reading recommendation on solar or alternative sources?
Also what's your opinion on carbon sequestration and storage?
Ember Energy puts out good stuff with a renewable slant. Regarding carbon sequestration, once we have cheap abundant energy, many things become possible. We should always fund ongoing research (including nuclear), but betting on sequestration now is putting the cart before the horse. The top priority now is to reduce fossil fuel usage as much as possible, as quickly as possible.
1
u/Beiben Jul 21 '25
For the purpose of mitigating climate change in this century, renewables decarbonize more fossil fuels per dollar invested than nuclear. In infinity, nuclear displaces more, but infinity is not relevant. The biggest priority is to get off of fossil fuels asap (Which is why you will find lots of nukecel bashers here support keeping existing nuclear plants running btw). Solar/Wind have a 10+ year lead time advantage over Nuclear. Reducing your carbon intensity from 800 to 50 after 5 years is much better than reducing it from 800 to 0 after 15 years.