4 ms·

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

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.

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.