BurnerAcc2020 t1_j8mpps3 wrote on February 15, 2023 at 1:20 PM

Reply to comment by HenryGreatSageJunkie in New study shows Acceleration of global sea level rise imminent past 1.8℃ planetary warming by 9273629397759992

You know that those Chinese nuclear plants amount to 5% of their electricity needs, right? If anything, the US already has about twice as many reactors as China and more than anyone else in the world - yet those are just 18% of the US' electricity.

A fully/mostly nuclear grid in the US is always presented as if it's a matter of building just a few more reactors, when the reality is that without a major reduction to the current levels of electricity consumption, you would have to build (and operate) a few hundred more of them. If you think that oil and gas industry is the only reason the US did not build 300/400 more nuclear power plants by now...well, OK, I guess.

HenryGreatSageJunkie t1_j8mt2om wrote on February 15, 2023 at 1:48 PM

No the scale of our electrical needs is easily met with nuclear. We just can't let capitalism run them.

Also op was talking about recently built reactors and new ones planned, China has built the most recently and has planned the most in the future. Why does everyone want to ignore the literal billions of dollars oil and gas has spent to spoil people's opinions on nuclear energy to the point that you just can't fathom building hundreds of plants around the globe.

Edit: what mechanisms exist in society that will allow us, the working class to change things to the point that we don't require as much energy in the future? Capitalism only knows consumption, and they're in charge. They own the oil and gas and they own the politicians that legislate. The future is the poor getting priced out of energy and dying, it's not a utopia of reduced emissions ushered in by shell, ExxonMobil and Halliburton continuing record profits.