3 ms·
Cheaper compared to every other suggested solution to climate change. If climate change wasn't a thing, sure, I'd probably be on board with writing off nuclear
by mseebach 10y ago
Cheaper compared to every other suggested solution to climate change. If climate change wasn't a thing, sure, I'd probably be on board with writing off nuclear and waiting for some combination of solar and wind and storage to take over.
Also, regardless of who pays, a Fukushima-event every few decades is several orders of magnitude cheaper than flood-securing New York City alone (and there are a lot more places in the world that will need flood securing).
- natch 10y agoI doubt the flood-securing work is avoidable. But maybe it could be less bad. Rather than nuclear, which lends itself to big government, corruption, corporate projects, bond issues, and taxes, I'd prefer to see money instead poured into acceleration of the spread of solar, which is less centralized and easier to spread to all kinds of places. Sure, not everywhere, but the potential is pretty untapped.