- Carbon capture (reforestation, underground storage, fundamental research, etc.)
- Geoengineering (space shades, reflective aerosols, fundamental research, etc.)
- Economics/sociology (carbon markets, incentives, subsidies, public awareness, fundamental research, etc.)
We should be debating what the total budget is, and how it's divided proportionally among these.
A blanket statement like "invest in renewable energy" only makes sense if we think the proportion of investment allocated to renewables is smaller than it should be. I personally think that's a fair argument to make, so saying "invest in renewable energy" is a statement I agree with.
However, doing so "instead" of nuclear only makes sense if we think that (a) nuclear already has too much investment and (b) it's better to defund nuclear than to defund other investments. I disagree with both of these.
Nuclear is in need of more investment, for example there are many new reactor designs that have not been commercially exploited yet; and the old-tech plants are near retirement (which keeps getting extended). The fact that we're not seeing retired plants replaced with new tech, let alone many brand new plants, is largely due to lack of investment, as well as issues of regulation and public awareness (which affects the investment; but could also be invested in themselves!).
Regarding defunding: investment in fossil fuels can make sense (e.g. replacing coal with natural gas is a "quick win" which buys the climate some time), but as long as so much is over-invested in actively harmful areas (e.g. coal, tree burning like UK's Drax, etc.), then not only is it better to spend that money on renewables rather than taking it from nuclear, in some cases (e.g. marketing climate disinformation in the US) we'd be better off even if we burned that money for fuel, let alone invested it in renewables!
- Nuclear (existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, fusion, etc.)
- Renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, current tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.)
- Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas, existing tech, emerging tech, fundamental research, etc.)
- Carbon capture (reforestation, underground storage, fundamental research, etc.)
- Geoengineering (space shades, reflective aerosols, fundamental research, etc.)
- Economics/sociology (carbon markets, incentives, subsidies, public awareness, fundamental research, etc.)
We should be debating what the total budget is, and how it's divided proportionally among these.
A blanket statement like "invest in renewable energy" only makes sense if we think the proportion of investment allocated to renewables is smaller than it should be. I personally think that's a fair argument to make, so saying "invest in renewable energy" is a statement I agree with.
However, doing so "instead" of nuclear only makes sense if we think that (a) nuclear already has too much investment and (b) it's better to defund nuclear than to defund other investments. I disagree with both of these.
Nuclear is in need of more investment, for example there are many new reactor designs that have not been commercially exploited yet; and the old-tech plants are near retirement (which keeps getting extended). The fact that we're not seeing retired plants replaced with new tech, let alone many brand new plants, is largely due to lack of investment, as well as issues of regulation and public awareness (which affects the investment; but could also be invested in themselves!).
Regarding defunding: investment in fossil fuels can make sense (e.g. replacing coal with natural gas is a "quick win" which buys the climate some time), but as long as so much is over-invested in actively harmful areas (e.g. coal, tree burning like UK's Drax, etc.), then not only is it better to spend that money on renewables rather than taking it from nuclear, in some cases (e.g. marketing climate disinformation in the US) we'd be better off even if we burned that money for fuel, let alone invested it in renewables!