4 ms·
Notable success would be what was promised in the 50s. Energy so abundant that it's not metered. Doing to coal what coal did to wood. I don't think you should
by dalbasal 6y ago
Notable success would be what was promised in the 50s. Energy so abundant that it's not metered. Doing to coal what coal did to wood. I don't think you should judge renewables on the same terms. These are much younger projects, at scale.
Seizing defeat is fair, perhaps. Nuclear has been on the cusp for too long. "Marginally better than coal/gas" is not the notable success we were promised. I'm willing to cut losses, if that's all that is at risk.
I'm not saying that nuclear's first principles advantages will never materialize. They will eventually. I just wouldn't be betting on nuclear now.
- chrisdinn 6y agoYou’re definitely right by that measure. There’s a famous hydro energy deal between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec in Canada where in the 1960s Newfoundland agreed to provide hydro power in a long term contract (80 years?) for what is now a fraction of its value. It’s viewed as an enormous boondoggle (“Churchill Falls”) but what most don’t realize is it was signed under the expectation that the coming wave of cheap, abundant nuclear would make hydro power uncompetitive.
- dalbasal 6y agoThat's a really demonstrative example. I love trying to see the present from the viewpoint of the past. I feel like it sharpens the quality of my subjective judgement more than anything else. I was quite obsessed with Keynes' famous 15 hr workweek prediction as a student.