If climate change is indeed an existential threat, then by definition nuclear is cost-effective.

And at any rate, why not both?

We do not have infinite resources. Committing 7-11 years and countless billions to build a NPP leads to those funds and other resources to be unavailable elsewhere.

Each wind farm, each set of solar panels, each battery storage will begin to pay dividends immediately as each one is finished. While the huge plant will be nothing-nothing-nothing-... for years upon years.

Builders, engineers, capital, and such is better suited to be investing in other sources of energy.

▲

melling 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s exactly what people said 10 years ago…and 10 years before that.

Listen to Ken Griffin explain why we need nuclear.

https://youtube.com/shorts/yu1UJ1JPjpw?is=etcYMpudQPZRZQQw

▲

Y-bar 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Exactly the reason NPP will not save us, no matter how much I (and you, probably?) like it. All the numbers are still better for other solutions.

▲

melling 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s how we got to 2026 and we still haven’t reached peak coal.

	▲	uecker 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We haven't reached peak coal because we did not start developing renewables earlier. We did waste a huge amount of resources in nuclear in the past, which still never became cheap enough. That we now see a transition away from fossil fuels in large parts of the word is thanks to wind and solar becoming very cheap.

▲

tancop 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]