dabinatEurope asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks
Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy. For the long term, nuclear will be part of the solution.
With that said, there is no such thing as an energy shock right now. Instead, Europe has allies who blatantly attacked a sovereign nation. The answer to that is to condemn and sanction the instigators. What are laws for if they can selectively applied? This is a political problem.
> Nuclear is the answer to our infinite appetite for energy
Approximately 100% of the energy in our solar system radiates from the Sun. Long term, solar is the answer. Nuclear is a really good carrier. In the medium term, we need more energy. Preferably cheap. Ideally clean. Going all in on one mode doesn't make sense because it virtually demand the creation of bottlenecks and single points of failure.
What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years? The solution is to diversify renewable energy sources.
Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great.
> solution is to diversify renewable energy sources
There are two economically-viable renewable sources: solar and wind. Everything else is, to put it succinctly, bullshit.
We're not producing and deploying as much solar and wind as we can. But global production has limits. Going all in on just those two (together with batteries) requires massively overpaying. That, in turn, makes the economy uncompetitive.
> Nuclear takes to long to plan and build. If that is fixed, then great
Permitting takes forever, too. Nuclear can be done quicker and cheaper, we've seen China do that. It's a good part of the mix because we just need to add power, and ideally, with economies of scale.
> What do we do if another asteroid strikes, raises dust plumes and causes volcanic activity for years?
A few nuclear plants will do absolutely nothing against a nuclear winter.