4 ms·
You know, what's not clear at all is that renewables will ever be cheaper than fossil fuels outside of a minority of markets. You're putting a lot of weight on
by nikitaga 6y ago
You know, what's not clear at all is that renewables will ever be cheaper than fossil fuels outside of a minority of markets. You're putting a lot of weight on that prediction but despite all the recent progress on costs, if that was going to happen anytime soon, climate change would largely solve itself. Wouldn't that be nice.
Small modular nuclear on the other hand could be economically feasible in places that don't have the money to pay extra for renewables but still want to drop their GHG emissions.
- vosper 6y agoI'm not claiming that renewables have to completely replace fossil fuels (see my reference to carbon capture), or that they even need to be cheaper (fossil fuels could become artificially expensive by, eg, carbon taxes). I'm questioning the assertion that nuclear is essential, which is what was claimed by the comment I replied to. Nuclear might be nice to have, might be better for various reasons, might be lots of things. But is it absolutely required "to solve the looming energy crisis of the 21st century while still maintaining the same standard of living for everyone"? That's my question.