6 ms·
Nuclear would be much, much more expensive than battery for this application. In these energy-related threads, it seems like there's always a top comment extol
by ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Nuclear would be much, much more expensive than battery for this application.
In these energy-related threads, it seems like there's always a top comment extolling the virtues of nuclear power, whether the link mentioned nuclear or not. And I would just encourage you to do the research about what nuclear costs. Safety is a red herring. We're not building out nuclear because it costs 2-4x more per kilowatt than wind or solar. [1]
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...]
- sofixa 4y ago> Nuclear would be much, much more expensive than battery for this application. But batteries of the capacity required to propel a container ship for long distances are impractical and would take far too much precious space and weight.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThe article is about why that's not true for shorter distances, and as soon as it's true for those, you do the math and find that floating supercharger stations are cheaper than nuclear. You could even build floating, nuclear powered supercharger stations, if nuclear didn't cost more than the alternatives.