12 ms·
I'd say that is making my point.
by RandomLensman 3y ago
I'd say that is making my point.
- vlovich123 3y agoHuh? Space costs didn’t go down because it was being applied in the wrong places on the wrong things. Yet the right investment by Musk applied in the right way caused space costs to plummet (well technically it started off with the Xprize trying to stimulate that space although not sure if that had any real effect). Why do you think that nuclear is some special snowflake of a technology that doesn’t get cheaper the more we do it? We don’t really build very many nuclear plants in an effective way and the only licensed design in America is a design from the 70s. SMNRs are an interesting idea worth exploring. I think molten salt would be too. The government should be pushing many players to design plants and put them through testing and then qualify some of them and commit to building like 500 of a given design and make sure each subsequent plant is built with the first design + learnings from the previous design that can reduce cost.
- RandomLensman 3y agoYes, some new nuclear technology might shift cost curves, but other sources are already cheaper. Nuclear never had a strong fall costs that is what makes it a tougher thing because you likely need a change in technology. There are some reasonably well understood cost evolution in technology. Wanting to spend huge amounts of money in the hope that the economics will somehow work out is not an easy proposition when other things are already cheap.