[greenthrow]

Nuclear takes way too long to come online. If we decide today to build 40 new reactors around the world it will be decades before they are online and operational.

Nuclear is also way too expensive. Building those 40 reactors would cost way, way more than building equivalent production in wind and solar.

Renewables and storage are cheaper, faster and yes, safer. There is absolutely no rational reason to keep building new nuclear reactots.

[otikik]

Renewables don’t work at night or when there’s no wind or water. When they don’t work energy has to come from “somewhere else”.

Besides nuclear, the only other option is fossil fuels.

Putting renewables “in opposition to” nuclear (instead of “in addition to”) is just advocating for more fossil fuel.

[frafra]

IPCC AR6 synthesis report shows otherwise: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/static/2f8a061eaef8dbfc9c.... The graph considers the effect of various actions and technologies in reducing emissions before 2030, and the estimated costs. Nuclear is there, even if building new reactors would have a limited effect before 2030, but we would still need to further reduce emissions afterwards.

[Overtonwindow]

As a former government bureaucrat, the reason why it takes such a long time to come online is because of bureaucratic red tape. The anti-nuclear side of the debate uses these regulatory hurdles to essentially halt any nuclear progress.

[slyall]

Hence there isn't really much point trying to build anything until the regulations are "fixed".

Since costs are rising in (just about) all countries I suspect regulations are not the sole cause of the problem.

[vfclists]

Regulations are the sole cause of the problem, especially in the US.

[slyall]

Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.

"The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages."

"Many of the excess costs were associated with delays caused by the need to make last-minute design changes based on particular conditions at the construction site or other local circumstances, so if more components of the plant, or even the entire plant, could be built offsite under controlled factory conditions, such extra costs could be substantially cut."

https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

[Overtonwindow]

If you want a more local example, the same type of bureaucracy that stops nuclear reactors is the same one that stops multi-dwelling units in California.

Fixing the regulations is nearly impossible. So much of alternative energy projects, nay ALL natural resource projects, are hindered by frivolous "environmental justice" lawsuits, regulatory demands, and outsiders with personal agendas; such as people lobbying to stop a solar farm in a place they don't even live or have any financial stake in, simply because they disagree with solar energy.

Regulatory burden is IMO the single greatest impediment to American environmental, energy, and manufacturing progress. It's simply not worth it anymore for developers given how heavily the system is unfairly tilted against them.

[vfclists]

More blatant untruths by the shills for the carbon based fuel industry, also known as the Greens.

Korea averages less than 5 years and the Japanese have managed one in less than four.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/10/123_215869...

As usual a corrupt Federal bureaucracy captured by the oil and gas industry applies laws which allows the them to make up new rules and conditions as they go along.

In any other industry experience gained from earlier builds would go into improving future builds