> you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is:

> you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is: both green hydrogen and nuclear are technologies that are currently too expensive compared to what the market can bear. But technology can evolve. If the cost of nuclear went down by a factor of 10, would you become a proponent of nuclear technology? What if it went down by a factor of 100? Is there any level where you would? If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? Why are you debating? It does not seem honest to me to engage in a debate where your position is that you would never change your mind, but expect the other guy to be willing to change theirs. Edit (to answer because we reached max depth limit): There's nothing for me to change my mind, I already think nuclear is too expensive to build. Here's my statement on HN a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 But does nuclear have the potential to become 10, 100 or 1000 times cheaper? I think so. Just 3 weeks ago Kairos received an NRC permission to build a pilot FLiBe reactor. https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-green-light-for-advanced-nuclear-non-lwr-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-gre...