4 ms·
That is mostly because there are no more large scale nuclear investments, lot of knowhow has been lost, everything is custom built now on every level of impleme
by fodkodrasz 3y ago
That is mostly because there are no more large scale nuclear investments, lot of knowhow has been lost, everything is custom built now on every level of implementation (which SMRs promise to solve), and because people care about the initial investments, not for the TCO. Oh, and politically motivated NIH red-tape for getting some votes on the cost of whole society.
- cinntaile 3y agoNuclear benefits from stable output, but the world we're in doesn't require stable output so the economics become difficult.
- fodkodrasz 3y agoThis is not true.
- cinntaile 3y agoYou really refuted my argument there.
- fodkodrasz 3y agoI'm simply tired of wasting time on renewable-energy-battery-storage fan service. We need stable power output.
- cinntaile 3y agoI don't get it, I didn't mention any of that? You're refusing to answer due to an imaginary reason you yourself came up with... Alright then.
- kwhitefoot 3y agoYou didn't make an argument, you merely stated something that the respondent disputes. There is a very stable base load in most countries that can be well provided with nuclear. This is especially the case when there are good interconnections between neighbouring countries.