3 ms·

>That’s almost an argument for nuclear power I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are

by pydry 3y ago

>That’s almost an argument for nuclear power I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are I guess. I wouldnt exactly treat the maintenance and construction of nukes as a sunk cost. It is possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy. We've done it before. >Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive It's beaten by solar + wind + natural gas. Nuclear power doesnt come close to being economically competitive even with the price anderson catastrophe liability cap. It needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist. For the military, however, cost is rarely an object.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating Then we'd better move with as much speed and strength as possible in the other direction.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. That needs a source. Not a single project in the west the past 20 years is even close.
- pydry 3y ago
  >It depends on how realistic you are. What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? >Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. Vaporware is always competitive with reality.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? Nothing. Just that they’re about arms reduction, not elimination. You’ll still have a military nuclear sector. Also, there is zero chance this makes headway in the near term; we’re in a phase of great power competition. > Vaporware is always competitive with reality We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. For solar and wind, it’s deployment bandwidth and storage. For nuclear, it’s AP100 economies of scale. We aren’t talking SMRs, just as with solar we aren’t talking space-based or whatever.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >Nothing Then your objections dont make much sense. >We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. With respect to solar and wind the costs and build times are very predictable, actually. We've already had one round of "we can create cheap mini reactors" in the 90s. That vaporware didnt work out so well, but the nuclear-military industrial complex got just as excited about it.

by pydry 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.

wolverine876 3y ago
> the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating Then we'd better move with as much speed and strength as possible in the other direction.
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
> Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. That needs a source. Not a single project in the west the past 20 years is even close.
pydry 3y ago
>It depends on how realistic you are. What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? >Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. Vaporware is always competitive with reality.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? Nothing. Just that they’re about arms reduction, not elimination. You’ll still have a military nuclear sector. Also, there is zero chance this makes headway in the near term; we’re in a phase of great power competition. > Vaporware is always competitive with reality We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. For solar and wind, it’s deployment bandwidth and storage. For nuclear, it’s AP100 economies of scale. We aren’t talking SMRs, just as with solar we aren’t talking space-based or whatever.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >Nothing Then your objections dont make much sense. >We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. With respect to solar and wind the costs and build times are very predictable, actually. We've already had one round of "we can create cheap mini reactors" in the 90s. That vaporware didnt work out so well, but the nuclear-military industrial complex got just as excited about it.