> We need the energy now, though, not in 15+ years.
Well we will also need it in 15+ years.
The best time to plant a tree is 15 years ago, and that will still be true in 15 years. The world (hopefully) isn't going to blow up within the next 15 years, so there's no reason we shouldn't consider 15-years investments anymore.
Fossil fuels reserves are going to collapse in the coming decades; even if solar energy prices keep falling, it won't be enough to compensate; any given country has a fixed capacity for hydro power, and it's rather small.
Right now nuclear may not be the cheapest options. But in 15/30 years we're going to desperately wish we'd explored absolutely every realistic option we had.
Germany added more than 10GW of solar alone this year, next years number will be probably significantly higher. That easily equals 1 nuclear power plant, even if you calculate extremely pessimistic. By going with solar (and of course wind), Germany adds the equivalent to a nuclear power plant every year to the grid. In a few years, even the equivalent of several nuclear power plants. Amongst all other advantages, that is significantly faster.
(Not even looking at China, they add more solar as the rest of the word combined)
Yes, I don't disagree. But with a finite amount of money, it's often not possible to do both. Nuclear has a huge risk (as in project risk, not thinking about safety) and a long lead time. It's no wonder why other options consistently get prioritized.
There are only so many rivers you can dam, so much surface you can put solar panels on without taking away from agriculture, etc.
And a full-renewable approach also has huge risk, it relies on storage technology getting much better in the future, otherwise you need either fossil fuels or nuclear to cover dips. Diversifying probably makes sense.
Any semblance of carbon capture is going to need copious amounts of the most cutting edge nuclear energy we can think of. Breeder, thorium, MOX fuel, etc. Having an edge on that is going to be worth a lot in 20 years.
Why? Carbon capture seems to fit renewables much better.
Carbon capture economically speaking doesn't make anything desirable. We're essentially throwing money at making a problem go away, it's pure spending. So the cheaper, the better, and the sooner the better. Everything else is irrelevant.
So solar and wind are probably are a better bet, and intermittency/storage doesn't really matter.
> Fossil fuels reserves are going to collapse in the coming decades
Source? Quick internet searches seem to say we have more than 50 years left of coal, oil, and natural gas that we know we can extract. And that will expand as we find more and get better at extracting it.
To be clear: we do need to dramatically reduce our fossil fuel usage. Just saying that, so far as I can tell, we're not going to run out of anything in the next 30 years.
It costs money to extract those reserves. It even costs money to maintain existing wells that have already been dug. If prices drop below a certain level, those reserves won't ever be accessed.
Well we will also need it in 15+ years.
The best time to plant a tree is 15 years ago, and that will still be true in 15 years. The world (hopefully) isn't going to blow up within the next 15 years, so there's no reason we shouldn't consider 15-years investments anymore.
Fossil fuels reserves are going to collapse in the coming decades; even if solar energy prices keep falling, it won't be enough to compensate; any given country has a fixed capacity for hydro power, and it's rather small.
Right now nuclear may not be the cheapest options. But in 15/30 years we're going to desperately wish we'd explored absolutely every realistic option we had.