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.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

▲

petre 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

pfdietz 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Geothermal is also looking promising, probably more so than nuclear.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Geothermal is also looking promising Europe should absolutely develop it. But it's no panacea. Optimistically, "around 43 GW of enhanced geothermal capacity in the European Union could be developed at costs below 100 €/MWh" [1]. That's 3% of European energy demand [2]. [1] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/hot-stuff-geotherma... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... 36.6k PJ/year ~ 1,160 GW
	▲	stop50 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Especially in the eiffel region.