First of all, your arguments may be as valid as you like, but your insults and personal attacks, as far as I'm concerned, nullify your reasoning entirely. You can criticize my positions all you want, but I've never attacked you personally, whereas you have.
That said, the pattern in all my discussions is very clear: those who criticize nuclear power often pick a single metric to argue against it, defending this metric to the extreme while completely ignoring the overall complexity of the issue.
You are doing exactly the same thing, insisting that the number of workers required is somehow a definitive metric to demonstrate the inadequacy of nuclear power.
You are probably correct that the number of personnel needed to maintain a photovoltaic plant is lower. However, this alone proves nothing beyond that specific point.
If we aimed for a fully nuclear-powered economy, the numbers for electricity generation would indeed be what I've stated (between 1 and 0.7 people per MW). In addition, this number is hugely outsized for reasons of over-regulation, scalability, technology, etc. If nuclear power received at least one-tenth of the subsidies and from the flexibility of renewables, how would it rule out a landscape with new, less labor-intensive reactors? Most of the reactors in operation are very old, and technology changes come very late because of little investment and overregulation.
Regarding total solar energy generation, one must consider the entire cost of a smart grid, personnel for storage, etc. Additionally, solar panels have a much shorter lifespan compared to nuclear power plants, and we're dealing with vastly different volumes and quantities of materials (assuming we want to recycle every panel). Furthermore, the solar industry is significantly less transparent than the nuclear industry, including the number of people required for panel production and their working conditions. ( https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ )
There are likely many other hidden costs that I haven't mentioned, which would further increase the prices and the number of required personnel. Therefore, if you want to continue debating on this basis, go ahead. However, I want to emphasize that even if renewables required more personnel than a nuclear power plant, the discussion would still be pointless for me. The number of people involved says very little about the technology itself or its future prospective.
And again, my point is not to choose nuclear over renewable. But rather why do people like you prefer to rule it out when the IPCC itself calls it necessary for decarbonization? I want to decarbonize in a diversified way, focus on all available technologies, do you?
When you litter this site with low-quality inflammatory comments where you call people a Marxist, accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, pure ideology, call them a paid shill etc that is fine.
When I call you out on that behavior that "nullifies my reasoning entirely" (???)
This site has high quality discussions in part of the higher level of effort people put in their comments. There are plenty of interesting arguments against my original comment! You could argue that labor costs may not continue to rise. Or you could argue that a large portion of the labor costs around nuclear are white-collar and could be reduced by using AI. Or you could argue that cost isn't everything and that a nuclear power program has several benefits for national security. I'd love to read a well-thought out response of any kind. Instead you wrote a huge list of low-quality points in every one of your responses. We all know that the manufacture of solar panels is evolving, and that nuclear can reduce carbon emissions, and that 1MW solar is not the same as 1MW nuclear, and that solar without batteries is not enough; similarly it should be obvious to anyone that maintaining a nuclear reactor is harder than maintaining a field of solar panels; commenting these things is a waste of everyone's time. Making twelve different tangentially-related points and offhand comments doesn't serve anyone. That is why I am frustrated.
I reinvite you to re-read the discussion. You are the one who started making completely unnecessary and inappropriate comments about my personal profile, and how I spend my time.
Besides all that, with every comment I have always been in the topic, I have always brought arguments. However, I consider the discussion closed.
That said, the pattern in all my discussions is very clear: those who criticize nuclear power often pick a single metric to argue against it, defending this metric to the extreme while completely ignoring the overall complexity of the issue.
You are doing exactly the same thing, insisting that the number of workers required is somehow a definitive metric to demonstrate the inadequacy of nuclear power.
You are probably correct that the number of personnel needed to maintain a photovoltaic plant is lower. However, this alone proves nothing beyond that specific point.
If we aimed for a fully nuclear-powered economy, the numbers for electricity generation would indeed be what I've stated (between 1 and 0.7 people per MW). In addition, this number is hugely outsized for reasons of over-regulation, scalability, technology, etc. If nuclear power received at least one-tenth of the subsidies and from the flexibility of renewables, how would it rule out a landscape with new, less labor-intensive reactors? Most of the reactors in operation are very old, and technology changes come very late because of little investment and overregulation.
Regarding total solar energy generation, one must consider the entire cost of a smart grid, personnel for storage, etc. Additionally, solar panels have a much shorter lifespan compared to nuclear power plants, and we're dealing with vastly different volumes and quantities of materials (assuming we want to recycle every panel). Furthermore, the solar industry is significantly less transparent than the nuclear industry, including the number of people required for panel production and their working conditions. ( https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ )
There are likely many other hidden costs that I haven't mentioned, which would further increase the prices and the number of required personnel. Therefore, if you want to continue debating on this basis, go ahead. However, I want to emphasize that even if renewables required more personnel than a nuclear power plant, the discussion would still be pointless for me. The number of people involved says very little about the technology itself or its future prospective.
And again, my point is not to choose nuclear over renewable. But rather why do people like you prefer to rule it out when the IPCC itself calls it necessary for decarbonization? I want to decarbonize in a diversified way, focus on all available technologies, do you?