4 ms·
> The people handling the billions of dollars know their stuff, and they don't like nuclear for this reason. What do you mean by this? I’d be curious to read a
by sesuximo 5y ago
> The people handling the billions of dollars know their stuff, and they don't like nuclear for this reason.
What do you mean by this? I’d be curious to read about that. As far as I knew, nuclear is one of the main investments of the current us government (pages like https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/nuclear https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/nuc... confirm)
- pfdietz 5y agoGovernments (and quasi-governmental entities) invest in things for reasons other than direct return on investment. Essentially all nuclear construction is of this kind. Private investors spurn nuclear. That's because the cold financial details don't work for it. The first wave of nuclear investment in the US came to a crashing halt in 1978 not because of TMI, but because of the passage of PURPA which opened up the grid to merchant power producers (ostensibly cogeneration, but many were cogen in name only.) If nuclear were really a good deal, we'd be seeing merchant nuclear plants, financed and built privately. But that money went to fossil fuels, and now increasingly to renewables.
- sesuximo 5y agoI agree nuclear is generally govt funded rather than commercial. Although TFA is about a commercial nuclear plant (granted, about a minor setback for said commercial plant).... so there’s at least some commercial interest.