5 ms·

That's because nuclear is really expensive and you'd have to sell an arm and a leg to get enough of it to matter. Which is a hard sell to people. Renewables on

That's because nuclear is really expensive and you'd have to sell an arm and a leg to get enough of it to matter. Which is a hard sell to people. Renewables on the other hand are so profitable that investments in that are overtaking oil. They are so cheap that people are spending their own money to put it on their roofs in order to lower their energy bills. Even in places that don't get a whole lot of sun throughout the year. So, there's a widening gap between nuclear and renewables that is investment and cost driven. To fix that, cost for nuclear has to come down by quite a large factor. Most current nuclear projects don't have the right level of ambition on this front. Which is why there just isn't a whole lot happening there. People keep trying to phrase this in ideological terms when it's a simple economical issue. Nuclear cost needs to come down by an order of magnitude or so for it to start competing. More actually as that would be just about catching up with the current state of the art in renewables. Assuming that won't drop further would be a very bad assumption.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
While I understand there are real economic considerations, I think if we tie the success of renewables to pure profitability we are doomed. Why does it need to be profitable? I don't see why a reactor could not be state run, and the "cost" of the electricity is used to payoff some portion of the reactor. Another portion of a defense budget could be used to offset the rest, as making your country energy independent really is a security benefit. The cost will never go down if we don't start increasing investments in the industry itself. If economics weren't an issue would you find nuclear a better solution than other renewables?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  If economics isn't an issue renewables solve the problem. Why the atom splitting fetish?
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  The economics are tied to risk and reward. They capture the realities of nuclear just not being that great as it's advertised to be. So, no. The economics are poor because it really is that bad. My view is that some portion of should be invested on the off chance that the economics might improve if we do. But we should not bet our entire future on that happening any time soon. Balance risk and reward basically. I would say that's more than fairly covered by current budgets and I see no need to burn much more than that. And what we do there could probably be allocated more wisely. For example building more really expensive reactors seems like a waste of both time and money here. You get more energy for less $ with renewables. Given 5 GW of nuclear or 30 or so of renewables, I'll have some renewables. Easy choice. Also for the people that invest in these sort of things apparently. Nuclear is a hard sell to institutional investors. Basically it can't be done without tax payer money right now. Renewables are very easy to finance; even without subsidies.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago

While I understand there are real economic considerations, I think if we tie the success of renewables to pure profitability we are doomed. Why does it need to be profitable? I don't see why a reactor could not be state run, and the "cost" of the electricity is used to payoff some portion of the reactor. Another portion of a defense budget could be used to offset the rest, as making your country energy independent really is a security benefit. The cost will never go down if we don't start increasing investments in the industry itself. If economics weren't an issue would you find nuclear a better solution than other renewables?

pfdietz 3y ago
If economics isn't an issue renewables solve the problem. Why the atom splitting fetish?
jillesvangurp 3y ago
The economics are tied to risk and reward. They capture the realities of nuclear just not being that great as it's advertised to be. So, no. The economics are poor because it really is that bad. My view is that some portion of should be invested on the off chance that the economics might improve if we do. But we should not bet our entire future on that happening any time soon. Balance risk and reward basically. I would say that's more than fairly covered by current budgets and I see no need to burn much more than that. And what we do there could probably be allocated more wisely. For example building more really expensive reactors seems like a waste of both time and money here. You get more energy for less $ with renewables. Given 5 GW of nuclear or 30 or so of renewables, I'll have some renewables. Easy choice. Also for the people that invest in these sort of things apparently. Nuclear is a hard sell to institutional investors. Basically it can't be done without tax payer money right now. Renewables are very easy to finance; even without subsidies.