3 ms·
> Society can't function without cheap energy. > stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear. I really feel like your first paragraph refute
by labster 3y ago
> Society can't function without cheap energy.
> stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear.
I really feel like your first paragraph refutes your second. Nuclear is a lot of things, but cheap is not one of them. Possibly because nuclear production is forced to account for externalities while fossil fuels aren’t, but it’s not cheap.
- meinheld111 3y agoYou seem to know the answer to your question already
- Arnt 3y agoWhat question was that?
- stavros 3y agoThat like-for-like, accounting for negative externalities in all alternatives, nuclear isn't that much more expensive.
- labster 3y agoNah, wind and solar are much cheaper, they just aren’t great for providing base load, without some other storage. Nuclear is very good at base load but makes a bad peaker (and is expensive). Gas is also “cheaper” when you ignore externalities, which most places do.
- Arnt 3y agoStrange. I have looked the sentences preceding/surrounding every question mark in the thread now, and don't see a question matching that description.
- stavros 3y agoNot every question has a question mark, does it.