[vlehto]

If you take climate change stuff seriously, then the answers are these:

>How many?

As many as you can build. You run out of engineers and carpenters before you make too many reactors in time.

>What timeframe?

Now.

>Costs?

Doesn't matter that much. Easily cheaper than climate change.

>Who builds them?

Whoever can.

>Which models?

Hardly matters, any model is safer than burning coal.

>Where do we build them?

Doesn't matter. Any location is safer than burning coal.

>What effects does it have when?

Hope that we might have climate change to stop below 3 degrees.

[lispm]

Just like I thought. You have no idea how to do it, what it is going to cost and what impact it will have.

This will convince nobody.

[vlehto]

Are you doubting nuclear or are you doubting climate change?

[jason0597]

I'm a bit on the pro-nuclear side, but if you met a banker and asked him for a couple of billion upfront to build a nuclear plant, and said those things, he'd reject you outright.

[vlehto]

Of course. I'm not arguing to get funding here. I'm arguing that if you believe the IPCC storyline about climate change, then nuclear is the only viable option. Building should have started yesterday and the voting public of democratic nations should be fully aware of this.

If you don't believe the IPCC storyline, nuclear is still best power source right now. But there is no hurry. We can safely dabble with renewables and batteries and such until oil, gas and coal run out. No political hard decisions are needed, because prices of fossil fuels will increase well in advance to any catastrophe. So it will become economically sound to produce energy in some other way. Maybe it won't be nuclear then, I don't really care.

[mch82]

Two important questions to ask are:

- Will you volunteer to live by the nuclear plant or waste storage facilities?

- Will you work at or advise your friends & family to work there?