The IPCC found that global nuclear capacity would need to triple, reaching 1160 GW of electricity by 2050, to achieve our climate ambitions. This alone could save 5 gigatons of CO2 annually.
Fighting climate change means profoundly changing our way of life.
We do not need more energy, we must reduce our consumption. Electric, computer, cars, digital habits, etc. We do not have an ecological behavior if we drive a car even electric. Because the resources used to make all these products require many types of metals that come from mines that require tons of water and generate terrible pollution.
The nuclar is a lure to make us believe that we can continue to be the planet’s predators. Nuclear is 20 years of construction, 50 years of operation and 100,000 years of toxic waste.
Our only chance is to end the global productive system.
This is very interesting – why can’t one just buy old nuclear power plants from existing operators (who’re looking to retire the attend at the end of accounting life) at a pittance, and then extend their lifetime? Is that a feasible business plan for a hedge fund?
I get that extending existing Nuclear infrastructure could be beneficial to the clean energy transition that we need. The costs of new nuclear are not at parity with other technologies (coal, gas, wind, solar) which all include the insurance and clean up costs it takes to run them. In that sense the Nuclear industry is backed up by government based insurance and while the chance of a large scale disaster is low.....Japans $30 Trillion bill for their mishaps can't be discounted as a risk. If insurance costs were included. Nuclear would far exceed the costs embodied in your charts.
Fighting climate change means profoundly changing our way of life.
We do not need more energy, we must reduce our consumption. Electric, computer, cars, digital habits, etc. We do not have an ecological behavior if we drive a car even electric. Because the resources used to make all these products require many types of metals that come from mines that require tons of water and generate terrible pollution.
The nuclar is a lure to make us believe that we can continue to be the planet’s predators. Nuclear is 20 years of construction, 50 years of operation and 100,000 years of toxic waste.
Our only chance is to end the global productive system.
This is very interesting – why can’t one just buy old nuclear power plants from existing operators (who’re looking to retire the attend at the end of accounting life) at a pittance, and then extend their lifetime? Is that a feasible business plan for a hedge fund?
I get that extending existing Nuclear infrastructure could be beneficial to the clean energy transition that we need. The costs of new nuclear are not at parity with other technologies (coal, gas, wind, solar) which all include the insurance and clean up costs it takes to run them. In that sense the Nuclear industry is backed up by government based insurance and while the chance of a large scale disaster is low.....Japans $30 Trillion bill for their mishaps can't be discounted as a risk. If insurance costs were included. Nuclear would far exceed the costs embodied in your charts.