• Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Plants that take ten years to build don’t seem like a very good response to a boom that measures dataceneter build time in months and will probably collapse in a year or two as hype is replaced by the reality of the technology. Battery backed solar and wind on the other hand are both cheaper, and can be built faster than the ‘AI’ datacenters they are ment to power.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think nuclear power is important to the energy transition, and will find its use in certain use cases like large scale marine transport or places near the artic circle, but the window to build it was 1970 to 2010. At a point when the biggest thing slowing down green energy if finding financing for it, it makes sense to go with the lowest cost option available, which is battery backed solar.

    • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      10 years is unrealistic, today it’s closer to 15 years. Both time frames would be too late. Doesn’t matter either way though since the US elections. The world is not going to be able to compensate for the US emissions under Trump’s fascism when we were already on our way to 3 degrees globally BEFORE that.

    • Rooskie91@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Plants take 10 year to build because of a purposely complicated burocratic process. We churn out at least 1 nuclear submarines a year.

      Edit: I still think you’re right, renewables and batteries are cheaper than nuclear in most first world countries, but the building process doesn’t have to be that long.