3 ms·
Yes, I don't disagree. But with a finite amount of money, it's often not possible to do both. Nuclear has a huge risk (as in project risk, not thinking about sa
by matsemann 3y ago
Yes, I don't disagree. But with a finite amount of money, it's often not possible to do both. Nuclear has a huge risk (as in project risk, not thinking about safety) and a long lead time. It's no wonder why other options consistently get prioritized.
- Moldoteck 3y agoSweden is already doing good, they can afford investing lingterm
- selectodude 3y agoAny semblance of carbon capture is going to need copious amounts of the most cutting edge nuclear energy we can think of. Breeder, thorium, MOX fuel, etc. Having an edge on that is going to be worth a lot in 20 years.
- dale_glass 3y agoWhy? Carbon capture seems to fit renewables much better. Carbon capture economically speaking doesn't make anything desirable. We're essentially throwing money at making a problem go away, it's pure spending. So the cheaper, the better, and the sooner the better. Everything else is irrelevant. So solar and wind are probably are a better bet, and intermittency/storage doesn't really matter.
- PoignardAzur 3y agoI think there's probably diminishing returns? There are only so many rivers you can dam, so much surface you can put solar panels on without taking away from agriculture, etc. And a full-renewable approach also has huge risk, it relies on storage technology getting much better in the future, otherwise you need either fossil fuels or nuclear to cover dips. Diversifying probably makes sense.