4 ms·

Nuclear is dead end tech. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear without the PR problems or risks, and getting cheaper all the time. The future is solar, wind, and

• rayiner 8y ago
  Renewables will, at best, allow us to maintain our current energy expenditures in a more sustainable manner. (If that.) But they are incredibly space inefficient. Nuclear is the only avenue for increasing our energy production by an order of magnitude or more. (Not to mention, there is no such thing is a solar powered attack submarine or aircraft carrier.)
  • eloff 8y ago
    I call bullshit. 12 million acres of solar panels could power the whole of the US. We already lease twice that amount to oil and gas and twice that too just growing corn for ethanol. Solar would actually be a more efficient usage of land than the status quo just in terms of energy production.
    • rayiner 8y ago
      The competition isn’t oil and gas, it’s fission and fusion.
      • pfdietz 8y ago
        Fission and fusion have already lost. As Amory Lovins has pointed out, just the non-nuclear part of a fusion power plant would make it too expensive to compete. The reactor itself would have to cost negative dollars for the whole power plant to be competitive, and that's unlikely. https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-power-the-case-of-the-wrong-competitors/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/09/07/fusion-p...
        • eloff 8y ago
          While this seems an unpopular opinion here, it's correct. The economics are such that fission is out of the game, and fusion is out before it even got a chance. Now maybe one day we're using so much land area for solar and wind that it changes the calculus. But at least for this century renewables are going to dominate.
  • jfk13 8y ago
    Why should we want to increase our energy production by an order of magnitude? Maybe a new generation needs to read E. F. Schumacher.
    • rayiner 8y ago
      Building a fully electric transportation network, supporting a greater population, advanced weapons like rail guns, etc. You know, progress. The future. Maintaining our technological supremacy. China, Russia, etc., aren’t going to be reading E.F. Schumacher. Energy production equals economic, military, and political power. Whoever figures out how to break past the fossil fuel bottleneck is going to own the future.
      • chimpburger 8y ago
        And for space exploration. Nuclear propulsion would enable humans to reach Alpha Centauri within a lifetime.
        • pfdietz 8y ago
          No, fusion could not allow humans to reach Alpha Centauri in a lifetime, unless you mean they flew through the Alpha Centauri system without stopping. If you want human interstellar travel, that probably means beamed power propulsion. That's a better solution anyway, since it allows higher power density at the vehicle. There is no need for fusion for that.
          • deleted 8y ago
            [deleted]
          • chimpburger 8y ago
            Let's restrict it to travel within the solar system. We'll need fusion to power all of those beams.
            • pfdietz 8y ago