We need more nuclear.
The first of the next generation natrium fast reactor plants is being constructed by Terrapower in Wyoming, which will retire a nearby coal plant.agreed - we have vast places with few people that we could put them too - liberals/Democrats won't allow it
They are safe.On the contrary, nuclear energy is a safe, reliable, less expensive to operate energy generation option. US plants are built to exacting safety standards for construction, operation and waste disposal. While the largely Chinese made solar and wind energy facilities only work when the sun is shining or the wind blowing, nuclear power plants run consistently 24/7. The major factors in inflated construction costs are unique designs and regulatory cost burden. Unsubsidized nuclear energy plant operating costs
"Nuclear, on the other hand, although the most expensive to build, has an industry-wide capacity factor above 90 percent, the highest for any form of generation. Reactors also have life expectancies of at least 40 to 60 years, as opposed to only 20 years for wind, solar and natural gas. This keeps nuclear's levelized costs low, despite the initial high costs of construction."
Many nuclear plants are decades old. But natrium plants are being constructed, which are more efficient.Nuclear needs some kind of advancement in cost/effectiveness. Right now, as it stands, it is the most unprofitable energy source by far.
Nuclear power is quite safe and environmentally friendlier compared to fossil fuel plants.This has a lot to do with modern security and safety measures and lack of scale.
That's because people are ignorant about nuclear and there's a stigma attached to them.There is also the problem that nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them, they might want nuclear power plants in general just not near them and nowhere close to them.
Many nuclear plants are decades old. But natrium plants are being constructed, which are more efficient.
Nuclear power is quite safe and environmentally friendlier compared to fossil fuel plants.
That's because people are ignorant about nuclear and there's a stigma attached to them.
Solar Power
- Utility-Scale Solar Farms: In the United States, the average installation cost ranges from $900,000 to $1.3 million per MW, excluding land costs. HomeGuide
- India: Costs are generally lower, averaging between ₹4 crore to ₹5 crore (approximately $480,000 to $600,000) per MW. solaraceenergy.com+1Om Solar+1
- Europe: In countries like Germany, installation costs are around €800,000 to €1 million (approximately $880,000 to $1.1 million) per MW. Energy storage blog
Onshore Wind
- Global Average: The installation cost for onshore wind projects typically averages around $1.3 million per MW, though this can vary based on terrain and infrastructure requirements.
Offshore Wind
- Fixed-Bottom Installations: These are more expensive, with costs averaging around $2.3 million per MW.
- Floating Offshore Wind: As a newer technology, floating wind installations can cost upwards of $3.2 million per MW, reflecting higher engineering and deployment expenses.
Education would seem to be the best way.I do agree with you, it still doesn't change the problem. Perception is perception I don't know how to change it.
Agreed and I wholly support such methods. That said, their power generation does not match nuclear or fosil fuels and are at the mercy of the environment. But they do make an excellent supplement to those power sources, reducing the demand for them.As for price, installation cost and removal cost are a major problem for nuclear. But they end up being more energy efficient, reducing the need for large amounts of fuels and can operate for decades.
It is simply way cheaper to just get solar panels and wind turbines.
If homes and other buildings included solar panels, they would be cheaper in the long run than paying for generated power from a plant. More individual utilization would also decrease the need and cost of solar farms.This is from chatgpt because I couldn't find a proper graph but you get the point:
Of course folk are reticent to have a nuclear reactor near them, safety is the biggest negative to folk getting behind nuclear power, in my opinion, and for good reason, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island etc.Nuclear needs some kind of advancement in cost/effectiveness. Right now, as it stands, it is the most unprofitable energy source by far. This has a lot to do with modern security and safety measures and lack of scale.
There is also the problem that nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them, they might want nuclear power plants in general just not near them and nowhere close to them.
Education would seem to be the best way.
Agreed and I wholly support such methods. That said, their power generation does not match nuclear or fosil fuels and are at the mercy of the environment. But they do make an excellent supplement to those power sources, reducing the demand for them.
If homes and other buildings included solar panels, they would be cheaper in the long run than paying for generated power from a plant. More individual utilization would also decrease the need and cost of solar farms.
Fossil fuels are not cheap when one considers the amount needed to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear. Then there's the extraction, transportation, processing, environmental, and health effects of fossil fuels.Sure, but why install nuclear if you need that when fossil fuels are way cheaper also than nuclear MW installation.
Education can influence or change perception.
that's impossible
maybe for your house .... but for all your electric cars (you don't own gas do you? ) all your electric things ( i listed a few) ... and then of course all the electric used to make everything you consume ....
yeah ... no. The more electricity used/demanded is literally more fossil fuels that will need to be burned. Unless liberals allow nuclear power plants, that's going to continue
Production is cheaper for nuclear but installation is once again folds more pricier which is the main investment. Also nuclear has significant price for removal compared to fossil fuels or renewables. You are asking billions if not tens of billions upfront and 5-10 years before electricity can be produced, obviously people are afraid to do this if its not a 100% winner which it isn't even close. Fossil fuels and Renewables are dozens of millions or hundreds of millions and a year or less.Fossil fuels are not cheap when one considers the amount needed to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear. Then there's the extraction, transportation, processing, environmental, and health effects of fossil fuels.
Education can influence or change perception.
View attachment 67570611
The electric used for everything I consume is essentially a constant and will continue. That is unavoidable.
However, as you can see in the graph above my household electric usage has been a big fat ZERO. Just last in the last billing period alone I added 572 kWh of EXCESS electricity production to the grid, not to mention freeing up the power that I would have consumed were it not for my panels for others to utilize.
So you do the math: net fossil fuel use from unavoidable sources year over year is basically a constant. Annual Household electric consumption is zero. Monthly excess production is 572 kWh.
you said "using more electricity = burning more fossil fuels"
I am using the same amount of electricity as I always have yet it is no longer sourced from fossil fuel generation, while at the same time I am providing my excess fossil-fuel-free electricity for others to use.
ERGO using more electricity = burning LESS fossil fuels
The bulk of nuclear costs is in the construction of a plant. Afterwards, costs of electrical generation and operations are less. Nuclear also produces much less waste and can be stored on site. Fossil fuels costs are at the mercy of the market and produce much more pollutions and are less efficient at energy production. Basically, nuclear is a cheaper, cleaner, and more practical investment over the long term.Production is cheaper for nuclear but installation is once again folds more pricier which is the main investment. Also nuclear has significant price for removal compared to fossil fuels or renewables.
Basically the price of installation(and removal but lets ignore it for now) for nuclear is so prohibitive that there is no point in build nuclear compared to fossil fuels. The problem is so bad that cheaper nuclear energy if we talk about pure production doesn't make it as good as fossil fuels or renewables.
Not very much, 0.4%.what % of our electricity is generated by oil products ??
serious question - does anyone know the answer?
The bulk of nuclear costs is in the construction of a plant. Afterwards, costs of electrical generation and operations are less. Nuclear also produces much less waste and can be stored on site. Fossil fuels costs are at the mercy of the market and produce much more pollutions and are less efficient at energy production. Basically, nuclear is a cheaper, cleaner, and more practical investment over the long term.
Not very much, 0.4%.
We get most of our electricity from Natural Gas, then Renewables, then Nuclear, then Coal. Natural gas is cheaper and much, much cleaner than coal and has been pushing it out of the market. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
I have acknowledged the fact constitution costs are higher.Its not cheaper because you can't just hide the fact that the installation or construction initial one is so pricy for nuclear.
I have also explained long term operational costs and energy production is less. As is pollution generation.Investers don't look just look at power to produce electricity, they look at it as an investment over long term and how much money it will make. So they factor in installation, production and then removal. With all that factored in, nuclear is just way worse than renewables or fossil fuels. I mean, I have nothing against nuclear but it is what it is. There is a reason why countries so easily abandoned it.
Seems that all of the growth is in China. And their electricity primarily comes from coal. So what we really have is a large increase in coal-powered vehicles.I know this has been a topic of discussion since the early 90s but for whole other reasons that we might run out of oil. I would like to bring another argument here, that we are at the end of the oil age not because we have run out of oil but because we just won't need as much of it anymore.
According to statistics, we use oil for gasoline/diesel transport around 55-70% of it. While the remaining 30-45% is everything else from products to lubricants to high octane kerosine and anything else.
But there is a trend that EVs adoption seems to be increasing in pace against our wildest imaginations with China and Europe taking the lead. And the tempo seems to be only accelerating world-wide. The only major economy slow at adopting this is America and Russia.
Share of EV sales compared to ICE(combustion engine):
View attachment 67569788
Trend in 2025:
Snapshot electric vehicle sales in Q1 2025 vs Q1 2024, YTD %
Basically 29% increase from 2024Q1 to 2025Q1
- Global: 4.1 million, +29%
- China: 2.4 million, +36%
- Europe: 0.9 million, +22%
- North America: 0.5 million, +16%
- Rest of World: 0.3 million, +27%
View attachment 67569789
This will put the sales at roughly 30% of total if the trend keeps up in 2025.
Right now we are still not feeling the decrease of oil consumption from it that well since the numbers started spiking fast in 2020 but it seems in the next 1-2 the drop will start and in 5 years from now severe drop in oil consumption will start.
Source: https://rhomotion.com/
Global EV Sales Up 29% In 2025 From Previous Year
Rho Motion, the leading EV research house, today revealed that the number of electric vehicles sold globally in March 2025 is 1.7 million, with 4.1 million sold in Q1 2025. The EV market grew by 29% in March 2025 compared to March 2024, and increased by 40% compared to February 2025. Rho Motion...rhomotion.com
But oil of that mix is only a tiny, tiny fraction. You didn't ask about Natural Gas and Coal, you asked about Oil. The vast majority of fossil fuel electricity production comes from Natural Gas. You should be glad that is the case as it's very clean, and unlike with Coal, we don't have to blow up entire mountains to get it.In 2023, fossil fuels generated approximately 60% of the electricity in the United States. This includes sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum
the answer is 60% +/-
Yes.<iframe src="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electric-car-stocks?tab=chart" loading="lazy" style="width: 100%; height: 600px; border: 0px none;" allow="web-share; clipboard-write"></iframe>
The cost overruns for the last 2 reactor units completed in the US were attributed to contractor nonperformance. If we are to believe the so-called environmentalists pushing the green new deal cost should be a distant second.They are safe.
The problem is the cost overruns and that those same safety measures make them prohibitively expensive.
Noise, heat islands, and being unsightly are all complains about bird Cuisinart wind turbines. Bird incinerating, habitat destroying solar energy farms require large acreage to generate significant load plus battery storage. Nobody wants to live near green energy generation facilities either.Also the perception is bad, no electorate is willing to place the nuclear power plant near them. They might like it in general but not near them.
As I said those are all unavoidable constants.all your automobiles are electric right? lawmower, weed eater, blower? tractor, tiller? how do you factor in all the electric used to manufacture/produce your consumables ?
its not just your house that is electric use - although solar panels on homes do have value. How old are yours? when will they need replaced ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?