> The problem with renewables is one of space and materials rather than energy production. Nuclear is drastically smaller in terms of the land footprint.
If you can't argue cost, make up some other argument. Land use is generally not an issue for solar or wind, because you can dual use. You can make the calculation that putting solar on roofs and parking lots would be much more area than needed to power the whole of the US.
> Focusing on cost is misleading because the costs are because we haven’t invested in fission in many decades
Actually nuclear has received significantly more subsidies than renewables [1, 2, 3]
> For example, the cost argument would go the other way in the 90s when wind and solar were much more expensive.
Yes and guess what all the nuclear proponents said? Don't invest in renewables. However, there is a fundamental difference wind and solar (solar more so) are on exponential price reduction curves and there is currently no indication it will stop. Nuclear on the other hand is not (prices have actually increased in many places) and there is nothing indicating that this will change.
> Also, solar provide energy when there’s typically peak demand so you can’t really load shift for DAC. Wind you might be able to do that.
How about we first transition to using carbon free energy production first before DAC. It does not make sense to produce energy using fossils (with the inherent efficiency losses) and then use another inherintly inefficient process to capture the carbon. You need much less energy if you move the first process to carbon free.
If you can't argue cost, make up some other argument. Land use is generally not an issue for solar or wind, because you can dual use. You can make the calculation that putting solar on roofs and parking lots would be much more area than needed to power the whole of the US.
> Focusing on cost is misleading because the costs are because we haven’t invested in fission in many decades
Actually nuclear has received significantly more subsidies than renewables [1, 2, 3]
[1] https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/US...
[2] https://taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/understanding-...
[3] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Too_much_money_for...
> / regulations are fairly insane.
Actually, for the size of the projects wind and solar have significantly higher regulatory hurdles. [4]
[4] https://www.ft.com/content/19d502c7-c1f7-4b07-9ad6-67f110507...
> For example, the cost argument would go the other way in the 90s when wind and solar were much more expensive.
Yes and guess what all the nuclear proponents said? Don't invest in renewables. However, there is a fundamental difference wind and solar (solar more so) are on exponential price reduction curves and there is currently no indication it will stop. Nuclear on the other hand is not (prices have actually increased in many places) and there is nothing indicating that this will change.
> Also, solar provide energy when there’s typically peak demand so you can’t really load shift for DAC. Wind you might be able to do that.
How about we first transition to using carbon free energy production first before DAC. It does not make sense to produce energy using fossils (with the inherent efficiency losses) and then use another inherintly inefficient process to capture the carbon. You need much less energy if you move the first process to carbon free.