3 ms·
I can't help but wonder where the US would be at if they had pulled a France and had the vast majority of their power generation sourced from nuclear. * Yes, I
by exabrial 3y ago
I can't help but wonder where the US would be at if they had pulled a France and had the vast majority of their power generation sourced from nuclear.
* Yes, I'm aware France's back was against the wall since they don't possess the vast hydrocarbon energy reserves like the US.
* Yes I'm aware of France's nuclear renaissance stagnated, and they're currently trying to play catchup
* No, nuclear waste is not an issue we need to be concerned with given current swimming pool technology
- more_corn 3y agoThe problem with nuclear is that plants cost $5B and take a decade to build. When they do get built the financial incentive is to run them cheap and run them long. This is incompatible with running them safely. Whereas rooftop solar can go up in your roof next week for fifteen grand and generate all the power your family will ever need.
- exabrial 3y agoI don't see it as an "either nuclear or solar" I see them as additive.
- entropicgravity 3y agoTrue enough, nuclear has niche applications in nuclear submarines, nuclear aircraft carries and the like. Possible in Antarctica where wind and sun are problematic. Possibly on the moon in the near future and few others. Otherwise though, the log log curves of solar, wind and HVDC transmission lines make it a near certainty that any nuclear plant that was just getting started today would be no where near economic by the time they spin up. Even now gas turbine plants are being shut down because they can't compete economically with renewables just because of the cost of the fuel never mind the cost of turbine plant itself. We're at the inflection point right now and it's going to get much worse for fossil fuel and nuclear as electricity generators from here on out.