204
You are being misled about renewable energy technology.
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
204 points (97.2% liked)
Videos
6419 readers
1 users here now
Neat vids from youtube or wherever. Rules later
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Allow existing nuclear to keep operating? Yes
Allow new nuclear to be built, assuming the constructors fully finance and assume the risk of the project themselves? Also yes
Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No
Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell
I have nothing ideological against nuclear, but it is way overdue that nuclear boosters face the music and acknowledge what role the technology is having in the political landscape at the moment.
regulatory: 3-5 years
site prep and build: 3-5 years
stocking, staffing, startup: 1-2 years
If we rush the regulatory, it's then 4-7 years; or not even one decade.
I'm not saying it's overnight, but it's not 'decades'.
Rushing regulatory for a construction project where failures are as severe as they can potentially be with nuclear is beyond deranged.
Getting to the timelines you're mentioning would require a mature nuclear industry with standardized builds, something which would take more than a decade to develop, at a steep premium.
Again, I support any investor willing to go there to do so, but there's a good reason none do - these things quite simply do not pencil out.
SMRs take a few years, and a fraction of the price, which is why China is building them and already has one on line.
Where's a real world example of a nuclear plant being built in just 4 years? In the US it's more like 10 years, at least.
No one's building them because they're barely profitable even after they're up and running for many years.
Why is profitability a requirement for infrastructure? Is mass-transit profitable? Is air travel profitable? Are highways profitable? Are suburbs profitable? Why is that even a concern? Would coal or gas plants be profitable? Hell, are solar panels actually profitable? I'm not so sure.
Chinese SMR.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-start-commercial-operation-first-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-2026-2025-12-11/
Ontario is building 4 SMRs, the first will be operational in 2028.
This thread is like US nuclear, 40 years behind.
39 months for Unit 6 of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan
France https://www.ans.org/news/article-7625/flamanville3-reaches-full-power/
You are literally doing what you claim to decry. Anti-nuclear means you are supporting fossil fuels. No one except people whose trigger word is "nuclear" thinks we should build fossil fuel power plants. The reality is that every time a nuclear powerplant is decommissioned it's not replaced by wind/solar, its replaced by fossil fuel plants. If you don't care about the environment at least be honest, since i really doubt you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, no need to push their anti-nuclear propaganda.
I'm not anti-nuclear, as is beyond clear from the post I wrote.
I even spelled out in my post that we should keep the ones that exist running.
But you realize that if you don't build new nuclear plants, you are going to get fossil fuel plants instead right?
Look at this: https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html
Since the 90's almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90's then all the surrounding states wouldn't be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn't need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Care to expand on this?
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it's obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn't be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
Is there some kind of upper limit on how much wind/solar/storage we can build out that I'm unaware of?
There is no limit to the amount of nuclear reactors we could build, but that is neither here nor there.
You:
I'm asking you to back this assertion up. If you can't, just admit that rather than trying to deflect.
I am talking about the reality here. We obviously cannot build enough solar/wind at this moment to replace the base-load generation that we have, otherwise we would, so I guess to answer your question YES there is apparently an upper limit we can build these things. What else are you looking for?
Sources to back up your claim would be nice.
Honest question, do you do any research on this topic or do you just go on how you feel about nuclear?
"Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible. According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems." A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be "technically feasible and economically viable." A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
I literally started this conversation with a source, you responded to a post containing a link from a clean energy government group that shows how fossil fuels have remained static in very few states, one of which is a net-exporter of nuclear energy, whereas everywhere else has increased the amount of fossil fuel generation, while simultaneously increasing the amount of renewable energy they have built. Rather then digesting this data and seeing that fossil fuels have NOT been displaced by renewables, you ask for a "source" for the claim that says exactly what the data shows.
Here is the source again. https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html Notice it's a not a wikipedia link with a quote that says exactly what you already believe.
The grid needs consistent power. We can power the grid by solar and wind only , but don't expect 120V when you plug into the wall socket.
Why is that?
hey, reminder to give an explanation if you don't want everyone to assume you're full of shit
The 90's are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It's literally not even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it's wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.
Zero grounds for this being the case.
Can you point to a single instance of a power plant being decommissioned and replaced with renewables?
That's not how grids work and I think you know it
Not my state, we decommissioned our coal plants and are probably going to be 100% renewable by 2030