3 ms·
Yes, that's what the historical data from the last 50 years supports. There's giant periods without any movement. Batteries have been around for centuries for
by kristopolous 4y ago
Yes, that's what the historical data from the last 50 years supports.
There's giant periods without any movement. Batteries have been around for centuries for instance.
These model can be a bit imaginative at times and nuclear may start its journey on it any day but so far it doesn't look like it has.
I'd love something absurdly cheap like a working Ponz-Fleischman bubble fusion to come around but if I was advising say a $100 million fund I'd say "solar + wind + chemical batteries" is the foreseeable future. It's just the reality.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoWait, that has happened with fission too, just not at grid scale because there hasn't been funding for it. If you look at military, academic, and space nuclear reactors, you will see Wright's law playing out. Solar and wind got the chance to ramp investment and scale. Grid-attached nuclear never did. Personally, I see more risks to massive-scale battery production than to modest-scale nuclear fission, both of which solve the same problem.