4 ms·
Even then nuclear would be behind renewables etc. - costs of renewables are aleady falling exponentially, and this under this "underfunded research regime" I c
by KellyCriterion 6mo ago
Even then nuclear would be behind renewables etc. - costs of renewables are aleady falling exponentially, and this under this "underfunded research regime"
I can remember one guy in the small village I grew up: He put solar on his roof already in 1991 - the people where laughing at him. (and back then you got nice state subsidies to do so). Today its a nobrainer - so for me its clear: It depends on the mindset of the society if those things are funded or not
- rayiner 6mo ago> Even then nuclear would be behind renewables etc. - costs of renewables are aleady falling exponentially, and this under this "underfunded research regime" I can remember one guy in the small village I grew up: He put solar on his roof already in 1991 By 1991, France already generated nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear. Pointing to the falling cost of solar today overlooks the fact that nuclear would have allowed a massive decarbonization of the developed world two generations ago. France couldn't have done that with solar back then. The current feasibility of solar and wind is the result of fundamental scientific advances in semiconductors and batteries that didn't happen until the early 2000s. Remember, CO2 is a cumulative problem. Massive CO2 emissions reductions from solar/wind in 2026 are a lot less valuable than the massive CO2 emissions reductions we could have had using nuclear 40-50 years ago.