• @frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1010 months ago

    How do you plan to reach 80% non-carbon-based energy by 2030? That’s the current stated goal by the Biden Admin, and it’s arguably not aggressive enough. Nuclear plants take a minimum of 5 years to build, but that’s laughably optimistic. It’s more like 10.

    SMR development projects, even if they succeed, won’t be reaching mass production before 2030.

    The clock has run out; it has nothing to do with waste or disasters. Greenpeace won.

    • elouboub
      link
      fedilink
      2110 months ago

      Greenpeace won

      And in doing so, helped doom us all together with big oil, gas and coal.

      • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        This is why I’m very wary of groups that are environmentalists vs groups of scientists. I have strong distaste for the former as woo woo people who only follow the science when it’s convenient.

    • matlag
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1310 months ago

      10 years from now, you might be in a situation where the grid is unstable and capacity is insufficient in front of demand. You will also be facing potential renewal of existing solar panels, wind farms, batteries storage, etc.

      If you lack capacity, any attempt at industry relocation locally will be a pipe-dream.

      And at that time, you’ll say either “it’s too late to rely on nuclear now” or “fortunately we’re about to get these new power plants running”. You’re not building any nuclear power plan for immediate needs, you’re building for the next decades.

      Meanwhile, one country will be ready to take on “clean production” and be very attractive to industrial projects because it already planned all of that years ago and companies will be able to claim “green manufacturing”. That country is… China!