Time's up (Meme)

 

In discussion about our energy future, there's a lot of division between nuclear and true renewables. They share many of the same pitfalls and have comparable costs. Renewables lack reliability, nuclear virtually cannot ramp up and down to follow loads, so energy storage is largely needed for both as a result. Cost and energy impact of renewables is driven up by sheer volume of needed raw material. Cost and energy impact of nuclear is driven up by the prospecting, extraction, and refining of nuclear fuel. Nuclear has one pitfall and that is waste, tipping an otherwise even scale in favour of renewables. The red herring always comes up, though: what about thorium reactors, etc? Cheaper fuel, safer waste, very good. The first prototype thorium reactor will be online no sooner than 2030. It will not be economically comparable to current nukes or renewables by 2030, it'll simply, hopefully be running by 2030. By the time they can be effectively be built and operated wide scale, it'll already be too late. We'll be sailing for +3-4 °C and the global stability we rely on for implementation of advanced technology will be significantly degraded. Get our current systems up and running. For those with nukes already running, great. With the resources and expertise available to most regions to build new capacity on a short term basis, that more often than not ends up being renewables. As to storing energy, I don't care if I need a giant flywheel in my front foyer, there are ways to make it happen.