4 ms·
While I see where you're coming from, this strategy has a severe downside: once you lose the urgency, I expect conversion to renewables will grind to a halt. I
by luca_ing 10y ago
While I see where you're coming from, this strategy has a severe downside: once you lose the urgency, I expect conversion to renewables will grind to a halt.
Inertia is a powerful thing.
In that sense it may be more reasonable to skip the nuclear step and invest the necessary billions in renewable infrastructure, not nuclear reactors.
- jerven 10y agoCompletely agree, as nuclear won't ramp up in the next decade. i.e. if I have 10 billion USD in the bank I can have that all converted in solar panels or wind turbines in 2 years. A nuclear plant would take 10 years just to get build. Economically speaking if I go nuclear I need to compete with solar prices 10 years in the future not the current prices. Ecologically its the same. I invest in solar or wind, I am displacing coal and gas within two years. The nuclear plant will only start helping 8 years later.