@replanet
I used to agree with the view that #nuclear power should be adopted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions but that was before #solar & #wind power had proven to be so effective.

The NIMBY reaction & the high inflexible power generated by nuclear power would make it difficult to build an industry here.

Nuclear power stations use vast amounts of concrete to build too which would not be particularly good for the environment.

#auspol #climate

@Neil1808 @replanet

The way I think about it is that nuclear can be seen as green in the near-term where it exists or can be rushed into service quickly, but that there's a cross-over that's happened already many places and coming soon in others that is as you say.

You also left out the issue of water use. Water will be more scarce, more variable in supply, and more precious in pure form (making it hard to use rivers) and more prone to flooding on coasts over time (creating possible additional risks I've not seen many public discussions about, like storm surge and sea level rise -- a quick web search found this: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/christina-chen/nuclear-vs-climate-change-rising-seas)

The nuclear power industry should see their days as numbered, and should be among those pressing to understand that (a) climate is serious and (b) any contribution they have to offer is immediate only. Soon they will lose the support of most or all in the nuclear-is-green camp for the reasons you cite. The viability of wind and solar and such things is ever-improving.

If the nuclear industry could recognize their dinosaur nature and yet be recruited as an ally to help get legislators to see the urgency of immediate climate action, that could perhaps yet be helpful...

People talk a lot about the difficulty of getting society to change. I think that's a misdiagnosis. Society can change MUCH faster than we're doing. It changed almost overnight due to covid. It changed dramatically in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) in response to World War II, with ration cards and the entire public involved in conservation efforts. Those were big inconveniences but the public accepted them because they BELIEVED the risk.

We are collectively in far more denial than we realize. The public simply does not believe there is a problem. It's distorting all discussion of options. Everyone wants to believe these are one-off or distant problems that don't require systematic problems. We want to elect politicians willing to lie to us. When we finally accept this is as bad as it is, we'll have much better discussions.

@kentpitman @replanet

I find the idea of nuclear energy being 'rushed into service' amusing.

Given the cost & difficulty of construction, it can only be rushed into service where it's already been built.

@Neil1808 @replanet

Well, everything is relative. But I get your amusement. And the rush should be theirs, not the public's.

I just want a rush to carbon-free electric by whatever means. And I'll take help wherever it comes from on convincing the public that time matters.