3 ms·
To assume nuclear won't be making any cost reductions is to basically beg the question. We're discussing whether we should invest in nuclear. Renewables have r
by Robotbeat 7y ago
To assume nuclear won't be making any cost reductions is to basically beg the question.
We're discussing whether we should invest in nuclear. Renewables have reduced in price because of investment. Nuclear has not because we have dramatically reduced our investments there over the last several decades. If we invest again in nuclear, there will be cost reductions from the learning curve. If we don't, there won't be cost reductions.
IMHO, climate demands we invest in every promising resource. And that includes nuclear.
- pfdietz 7y agoNo, it's to respect the evidence. Nuclear has a history. That history shows a stubborn lack of progress in reducing costs. In contrast, solar has shown spectacular and sustained cost reductions. Governments have invested very heavily in nuclear, much more so than in renewables. To pretend there hasn't been investment is disingenuous in the extreme.