[melling]

After 40 years, perhaps the anti-nuclear movement could realize they were wrong.

Burning all that coal for the past half century was a really bad idea. In the meantime, we patiently wait for another solution. Today we could be talking about being carbon neutral by 2070 instead of 2050 but we decided to wait.

Now we need to spend money to “adapt” to climate change.

https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adapta...

[loopback_device]

Where does this idea that the anti-nuclear movement advocated for fossil fuels come from?

That's never been the case, as anyone who lived at the time of the early protests can tell you (or anyone who's parents did). Even Wikipedia has a whole section on that topic [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Nuclear-...

[jjk166]

The members of the anti-nuclear movement didn't intend to advocate for fossil fuels, but in practice that's exactly what they did. When the choice is between a nuclear plant and a coal plant, being anti nuclear is being pro coal. That's why many organizations opposing nuclear power received substantial donations from the fossil fuel industry - because they wanted their opponents to fight amongst themselves.

[throwawayffffas]

I don't think anyone thinks the activists are pro fossil fuels, but by stopping the development of nuclear projects they essentially served the fossil fuels industry interests. It's not an accident for example that Friends of the Earth was founded by money from an oil magnate. From the groups wikipedia page:

> stopped more than 150 destructive dams and water projects worldwide

While I empathize with the desire to preserve waterways, you can be sure that for each one of these dams that didn't get built a coal or gas plant didn't shutdown.

[ttfkam]

Everyone wants the lights and heat to stay on. If that isn't coming from nuclear, it has to come from somewhere, and for the first several decades, it couldn't come from solar and wind.

Coal was the inevitable base load power source given a lack of alternatives. If you focus on limiting nuclear with far greater zeal than coal, this is the result.

See: perfect is the enemy of good.

[EricE]

It still can't come from solar or wind. Even if we waved a magic wand and had infinite and free energy storage, scaling solar and wind for sustained base load support is still a pipe dream. We are struggling to recycle the minuscule waste stream for solar and wind right now. Heck for wind turbine blades we aren't even really doing anything meaningful - meanwhile they are stacking up.

Without nuclear we are not getting off of fossil fuels - period.

[ncmncm]

After 60 years perhaps the nuke-boosters can admit that nukes were never a good idea. They have always depended on massive public subsidy to appear competitive.

Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies.

Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

[kennend3]

Time will tell... My province (Ontario) use to have one of the largest coal plants in the world (Nanticoke 3964 MW).

It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.

Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)?

No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest.

when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters"

When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township"

Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them?

I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.

[ncmncm]

It costs more to operate nukes than renewables, even neglecting the staggering capital expenditure nukes cost. As a result, existing nukes will be mothballed as they become unable to sell power at a price that enables them to continue operating. Financing to build new ones is already prohibitive, except under government coercion.

[kennend3]

Odd.. because this is NOT what took place here (Ontario) where our government pushed us to near-bankruptcy debt by signing long-term contracts to build "green energy". it cost them an election, and many years later the party responsible for those decisions (among others) have yet to gain "party status".

Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well?

https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-....

Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well?

Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place.

First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests.

take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot...

As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it.

In Ontario, the cost to generate power is :

- Hydroelectric (5cents)

- Wind (8.6 cents)

- Solar (15.7 cents)

- Nuclear (16.5 cents).

Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights...

If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it?

As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...

[EricE]

>It costs more to operate nukes than renewables

Citation needed.

Also most of the prohibitive costs surrounding nuclear are artificial - bureaucratic overhead vs. real costs governed by implementing the technology.

[ncmncm]

Really, that is the hill you will die on? Nukes depend on running steam through monster turbines, which need frequent expensive maintenance. Fuel must be replaced periodically. You need highly-skilled operators and security guards at all times. You need periodic deep inspection and refurbishment of operation and safety systems.

Renewables incur no such expenses.

I didn't even count disaster insurance, which is always provided free by taxpayers because no nuke could pay it and compete.

[jjk166]

It's almost like a concerted effort over the past several decades to put up so many obstacles to nuclear construction that the cost of clearing such political hurdles can't be justified has worked.

The fact that nuclear costs only skyrocketed in the US while they stayed relatively constant or decreased in other countries suggests quite strongly the issue is political, not technical. In countries like South Korea, the LCOE of nuclear is less than half that of solar.

[bogantech]

Yeah thank god we went with the cheaper option that instead will make large parts of the planet uninhabitable /s

[monkaiju]

?