←back to thread

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says

(arstechnica.com)
425 points nixass | 3 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | source
Show context
beders ◴[02 Apr 21 21:26 UTC] No.26676182[source]▶
Solar is now the cheapest form of energy. Ever.

Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. All I keep hearing is soundbites from the nuclear and fossil fuel industry.

All is missing is the political will, not technology.

Use nuclear for situations in which there are no alternatives. Rovers on Mars or something.

replies(8): >>26676287 #>>26676405 #>>26676422 #>>26676440 #>>26676785 #>>26679063 #>>26680974 #>>26684544 #
1. Slikey ◴[02 Apr 21 21:42 UTC] No.26676287[source]▶
Not just that solar is the cheapest but nuclear is also the second most expensive option. I really don't understand this recent flood of pro-nuclear posts on HN.

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

replies(2): >>26679130 #>>26680989 #
2. hntrader ◴[03 Apr 21 07:58 UTC] No.26679130[source]▶
Because those costings for solar and wind don't include the costs and viability of storage.
3. stjohnswarts ◴[03 Apr 21 13:47 UTC] No.26680989[source]▶
Because we know about economies of scale and mass production. I think greens only think about their own pet projects. I don't know a single proponent of nuclear power who is against supplementing it with solar, wind, etc.