3 ms·
Besides the point brought up by jeltz about what "renewable" includes, I fail to see how the speed of innovation, or the fact that people can "hack it", will de
by demian 15y ago
Besides the point brought up by jeltz about what "renewable" includes, I fail to see how the speed of innovation, or the fact that people can "hack it", will determine which energy source is "the future".
Argentina, a developing country with a history of social turmoil and a relatively high level of goverment corruption, has been using nuclear power efficently since the '70s.
Probably "the future" will need mixed energy generation. It won't be only nuclear nor only renewable.
- wisty 15y agoGiven the life expectancy of reactors, we'll probably not live to see the last nuclear reactors decommissioned (unless we end up as cyborgs). We'll probably need more of it in the next 20 years (what's the alternative? gas is running out, coal is just dirty, and renewables have issues). But I see renewable power getting a lot cheaper than nuclear. It's easier to cut costs. It's easier to experiment with new stuff. More automation will bring the costs down, while nuclear tends to be one-off projects (note, modular nuclear might level the playing field a bit, but you can bet that they won't be laser-focused on bringing the price right down). Energy is all about costs. Nuclear power is unlikely to drop in cost as much as solar and wind.