4 ms·

Yes, because current cost is not set in stone and with mass production cost goes down. With removing redundant regulation, cost goes down. With inherently safe

Yes, because current cost is not set in stone and with mass production cost goes down. With removing redundant regulation, cost goes down. With inherently safe reactor designs cost goes down. I bet that if coal plants hand to offset the environmental externalities, it would be way more expensive. Setting the price from that plant is like saying that reusable rockets could not be competitive because the space shuttle was more expensive than the non-reusable alternatives. And, even if I am wrong and really, nuclear is more expensive, so what? Compared to the alternative of having our societies collapsing because of climate change, a 3x on the price of energy would be money _very_ well spent. Also, if nuclear really is that non performant, it would be _awesome_ for renewables. They would actually be attractive economically and we would see more of them, not less. Kill hidrocarbons all together. Leave the free market so sort out the alternative if you really care about cost.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Nuclear is the one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money. Renewables, storage etc, these are not quite solved problems. But we could just throw money at nuclear and get it done. The world was once building reactors like there’s no tomorrow, surely we could restart that. Yeah it’s expensive but so is sea level rise and dealing with hurricanes. And safety? Pollution from burning coal kills so many people every year, I’m slowly beginning to think nuclear safety is a bit if a non issue, even it a plant blows up every now and then.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Oh, I am on board with you here! One thing I will object to though - the claim that "one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money" - mostly because money is a proxy for human effort and physical resources. "Just money" is not really a thing, at least how I see it. An human effort is a great thing to spent and physical resources as well, but there is a cutoff point where "just money" doesn't cut it, because the underlying resource that money is supposed to buy is simply not enough of around. But that is not the case with nuclear energy. So sorry for the deviation.

rich_sasha 5y ago

Nuclear is the one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money. Renewables, storage etc, these are not quite solved problems. But we could just throw money at nuclear and get it done. The world was once building reactors like there’s no tomorrow, surely we could restart that. Yeah it’s expensive but so is sea level rise and dealing with hurricanes. And safety? Pollution from burning coal kills so many people every year, I’m slowly beginning to think nuclear safety is a bit if a non issue, even it a plant blows up every now and then.

RealityVoid 5y ago
Oh, I am on board with you here! One thing I will object to though - the claim that "one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money" - mostly because money is a proxy for human effort and physical resources. "Just money" is not really a thing, at least how I see it. An human effort is a great thing to spent and physical resources as well, but there is a cutoff point where "just money" doesn't cut it, because the underlying resource that money is supposed to buy is simply not enough of around. But that is not the case with nuclear energy. So sorry for the deviation.