3 ms·
The risks you end up taking on don't make sense for the amount of energy received. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. T
by lawrenceyan 6y ago
The risks you end up taking on don't make sense for the amount of energy received. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro are more than enough to power the world. They're cheaper too.
In terms of baseload requirements, batteries are the far safer alternative for transitioning away from fossil fuels. Nuclear power may have been tenable as a solution, even with the heightened risks, if improvements in battery technology were stagnant and/or stagnating. But this hasn't been the case, and so nuclear fission as an energy source will likely become a relic of our past. Now nuclear fusion on the other hand...
- quelsolaar 6y agoThe risk people aren't considering is public opinion. It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear power-plant. Historically when have had one major accident every 30 years. Each time an accident have happened, projects have been canceled or put on ice. This mean that if you start planing a power-plant today there is ~33% chance, public opinion will stop it before its completed. One good illustration id the documentary "Inside Bills head". Bill gates spent untold millions to develop safer, cleaner, less expensive nuclear power. One day he woke up to the news of the accident in japan, and all of a sudden all partners pulled out, permits where revoked and no one was interested anymore. (The costs, risks and time lag are more important arguments against nuclear, but I think this one is worth considering too)
- lawrenceyan 6y agoYes, Fukushima definitely put a huge damper on nuclear. And I do generally agree with you. Every time an accident happens, which is an inevitability, it's guaranteed that some investors will pull out.