3 ms·
It's dead because it's not economically viable. It never was. It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry fo
by KennyBlanken 3y ago
It's dead because it's not economically viable.
It never was.
It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century, and it has only gotten more expensive.
Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost.
Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which makes them more resilient, have simpler construction, installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the geopolitical and security headaches.
The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC) to be able to better move power around and deploying more energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.
- wpm 3y ago>Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
- cycomanic 3y agoIn comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
- pfdietz 3y agoMoreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good experience effects, current deployment causes future costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience effects. Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
- jart 3y agoThey're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to think about where my power comes from, any more than people want to think about where their meat comes from.
- dale_glass 3y agoWhat, renewables? I don't see it. Every generation system is visible. Solar and wind are always cool to see. Nuclear is kind of boring. Coal is just ugly.