2 ms·
>No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. So why a
by macspoofing 9y ago
>No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living.
So why aren't we using nuclear?
- graeme 9y agoPeople got afraid of it and replaced it with fossil fuels. Near term visible risk vs. long run invisible risk. Also, cost overruns and regulatory issues played a role I think. We could conceivably swap out carbon for nuclear though. Just not carbon for [more expensive energy source]. People get antsy even when economic growth slows. A drop in the standard of living is political suicide. I don't think we're very well psychologically equipped to deal with this.
- bryananderson 9y agoThat and the expense of initially building nuclear energy facilities. Even though it's cheaper once it's built, the initial capital cost can be daunting.
- StillBored 9y agoA large part of the capital costs is satisfying all the environmental studies and inevitable lawsuits. The core technology is pretty cheap (concrete and pumps). Nuclear power is literally orders of magnitude cleaner/safer than anything else, and yet the fear mongering continues and the idealistic environmentalists are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere with every NG turbine installed to backup the wind/solar plants. Just the other day I heard a talking head repeatedly referring to "the old dirty coal and nuke plants".