[throwaway72762]

Even if nuclear were built as fast as possible it can't replace fossil fuels fast enough to mitigate before major feedbacks kick in. We're left with significant decrease in energy use as the main thing that has to be done and that there's no will to do.

[bryanlarsen]

We need to get generation to carbon neutral within ~10 years. Nuclear can't do it on that timeframe, and conservation can't reduce to 0.

OTOH, wind and solar can reduce emissions by 70% and save money over the long term while doing so. Wind + solar + short term storage can reduce emissions by 99% and save money over the long term while doing so.

Getting from 99% to 100% will be hard and will require likely either long term storage or carbon capture, which will be expensive. But don't let that get in the way of getting to 99%.

[trenchgun]

Realistically, we probably need energy all of efficiency, renewable boom and nuclear, and more. We should get going as fast as we can, but definitely will not be done in ten years. It is not just electricity that needs to be got off fossil fuels, but also transportation, industry, heating etc. Very likely nuclear power will have roles to play too.

PS. I live in Finland, our electricity is already mostly clean, in large parts thanks to nuclear. Next we will need to clean up heating and industry, probably with a combination of electrification (heat pumps), storage (heat storage, hydrogen), renewables and nuclear.

[bryanlarsen]

We're going from 10% to 25% wind and solar in three years. And those projects were committed without the incentives of the IRA.

A decade is very feasible for the electricity generation part of the problem, which is what I was referring to.

Other industries may take longer.

[Incipient]

What grid scale storage are you referring to? The only one I know is pumped hydro, and that's quite iffy efficiency wise, can be expensive, and you need the landscape to do it (I'm personally in a very flat area with nothing for a good thousand miles).

Legit question too. I know we have a bunch of nascent tech, but haven't heard of anything at scale.

[bryanlarsen]

I didn't use the term "grid scale storage", I used the terms "short term storage" and "long term storage". Which were you asking about?

Short term storage is batteries.

I called long term storage "expensive" and implied that it's the 3rd step so into the future, so that opens up the options for nascent tech.

Note that you don't need much of a slope to do pumped hydro. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...

[DropInIn]

I feel the need to note that if we can't hold that amount if water for power why is it we seem to think we can do so with mining tailings?

There seems to be an obvious contradiction extant in the markets....

[cameldrv]

It's perfectly possible, it would just take will. We'd need about 5000-10000 GW. Even if you take the very high cost of the newest U.S. reactor at 11.6 Billion for 1.12 GW, you get about 50-100 trillion. Gross World Product is about 80 trillion, so if you did it over 20 years, it's 3-6% of Gross World Product.

[kzrdude]

We need to stop fighting about the choice of best technology and build more of all the good ones. Nuclear, solar, hydro, etc, use all we have.