3 ms·

Cost is not everything though - Nuclear also produces extremely consistent and reliable power. That in it of itself can be a double edged sword in that if we do

Cost is not everything though - Nuclear also produces extremely consistent and reliable power. That in it of itself can be a double edged sword in that if we do not have a way to store the excess then it is "wasted" in some ways. But it also has big advantages in certain situations. If there is a decent sized natural disaster or war or some other thing that temporarily interrupts solar or wind power then the increased cost of nuclear power becomes much more attractive. Those situations may be rare but I still maintain we are best off with many different sources working simultaneously.

cableshaft 5y ago
Again, I have no problem with new nuclear plants being pursued, and there are some benefits to it that solar and wind do not (namely consistency, like you said). But the investment just isn't there in a significant amount. Without people willing to put the money into it, they're not going to be built.
- Maursault 5y ago
  When money is not an obstacle, new nuclear plants are built. I expect US Navy will continue to commission and operate nuclear-powered fleet until bovines return. Sadly, unless our future energy requirements have been vastly underestimated, economics is also going to make commercial-grade fusion unattainable. Like fission, it's development ultimately requires the vast sums only wealthy nations can provide. But even once fusion is achieved beyond breaking even, only those same wealthy nations will be able to pay, more likely massively subsidize, before any fusion power plant could dream about existing. This is why I think society should abandon centralizing power generation and require all structures to generate they're own green power. While massively less efficient than centralized power generation and distribution, with clean energy generation like solar & wind, and necessary optimizations such as more efficient climate control, we can afford to be less efficient.

cableshaft 5y ago

Again, I have no problem with new nuclear plants being pursued, and there are some benefits to it that solar and wind do not (namely consistency, like you said). But the investment just isn't there in a significant amount. Without people willing to put the money into it, they're not going to be built.

Maursault 5y ago
When money is not an obstacle, new nuclear plants are built. I expect US Navy will continue to commission and operate nuclear-powered fleet until bovines return. Sadly, unless our future energy requirements have been vastly underestimated, economics is also going to make commercial-grade fusion unattainable. Like fission, it's development ultimately requires the vast sums only wealthy nations can provide. But even once fusion is achieved beyond breaking even, only those same wealthy nations will be able to pay, more likely massively subsidize, before any fusion power plant could dream about existing. This is why I think society should abandon centralizing power generation and require all structures to generate they're own green power. While massively less efficient than centralized power generation and distribution, with clean energy generation like solar & wind, and necessary optimizations such as more efficient climate control, we can afford to be less efficient.