3 ms·
This would have needed to happen a long time ago to have the altnerative energy sources in production today. Which also begs another counterfactual scenario: wh
by fulafel 5y ago
This would have needed to happen a long time ago to have the altnerative energy sources in production today. Which also begs another counterfactual scenario: what if we had spent even a slightly larger fraction of the taxpayer r&d subsidies on renewables rather than the extremely capital heavy nuclear research on both military and civilian sectors, with many decades long dead-ends (breeders, gas cooled, liquid cooled, fission, etc), we'd be decades further along with solar and wind.
- keymone 5y agor&d in nuclear pretty much died down over past couple decades, it all went into wind and solar. and i think it's a mistake. safe compact nuclear reactors have been developed even with reduced capital, imagine where we could've been if we continued developing.
- fulafel 5y agoTo have more nuclear power now the plant constructions would have needed to take place starting 30ish years ago, to account for the 15 year lead time per unit and to space apart the large number of construction starts to get an appreciable number of them operational. To have better renewables in the counterfactual r&d scenario, the earlier we diverted the resources the better acceleration payoff it would have had, ideally in the 50s to 70s.