3 ms·

The kind of investment you see in those areas is not because the technology is amazing value for money (although it is), but because of the extrinsic value to a

by 7952 4y ago

The kind of investment you see in those areas is not because the technology is amazing value for money (although it is), but because of the extrinsic value to a user. An iPhone or a Tesla is a very different value proposition than a landline phone or a petrol car. But nuclear power does not give that kind of value to a user. The product is perfectly fungible with other sources. That makes it harder to bootstrap an industry. These kind of technological jumps forward require lots of different factors to align. We absolutely should be optimistic and maybe nuclear can differentiate itself. But it is really not the same as an iPhone. An absolutely collosal amount of money went into the supply chain that makes a modern phone possible. That was not done because having IMUs in your pocket is amazing.

bborud 4y ago
> But nuclear power does not give that kind of value to a user That wasn't the point. The point is that right now people can't even envision that nuclear can be done more efficiently because there isn't being invested much in nuclear. Just as people couldn't imagine cheap IMUs or electrical cars that were actually as good, and often better, than cars with combustion engines. It was an observation about people. Not things. If you look at the current energy crisis in Europe, that's one of those wakeup calls that could, and should, change our awareness of energy mix. Even before the Ukraine war, Europe was heading for an energy crisis because it was not investing enough in constant power sources. Focus has been on renewables, which is well and good, but wind and solar are intermittent. And as Norway is discovering, with changing weather patterns, hydroelectric becomes a challenge as well. To illustrate how serious the crisis is: a lot of businesses are energy intensive. For instance a grocery store requires enormous amounts of cooling. Bakeries require electricity to drive huge ovens. Some of these businesses see nearly an order of magnitude higher electricity costs. There are farms where crops get plowed into the ground because farmers can't afford the energy to process the produce and bring it to market. This doesn't scare people nearly as much as it should. So the value is rather obvious at this point.

by 7952 4y ago

bborud 4y ago

> But nuclear power does not give that kind of value to a user That wasn't the point. The point is that right now people can't even envision that nuclear can be done more efficiently because there isn't being invested much in nuclear. Just as people couldn't imagine cheap IMUs or electrical cars that were actually as good, and often better, than cars with combustion engines. It was an observation about people. Not things. If you look at the current energy crisis in Europe, that's one of those wakeup calls that could, and should, change our awareness of energy mix. Even before the Ukraine war, Europe was heading for an energy crisis because it was not investing enough in constant power sources. Focus has been on renewables, which is well and good, but wind and solar are intermittent. And as Norway is discovering, with changing weather patterns, hydroelectric becomes a challenge as well. To illustrate how serious the crisis is: a lot of businesses are energy intensive. For instance a grocery store requires enormous amounts of cooling. Bakeries require electricity to drive huge ovens. Some of these businesses see nearly an order of magnitude higher electricity costs. There are farms where crops get plowed into the ground because farmers can't afford the energy to process the produce and bring it to market. This doesn't scare people nearly as much as it should. So the value is rather obvious at this point.