2 ms·
This isn't a silly argument, this is a problem of allocation of resources. We could have had mass solar deployment since the 70s. We chose not to, and allocate
by Arodex 4mo ago
This isn't a silly argument, this is a problem of allocation of resources.
We could have had mass solar deployment since the 70s. We chose not to, and allocate the money elsewhere. Nuclear will take away billions in public money, put it into the hands of nuclear industries, to get electricity at twice the going rate, maybe, in twenty years. A white elephant and a waste of effort.
- hollerith 4mo agoCan you explain how that would have worked with the much less efficient and much more expensive solar panels available in the 70s?
- Arodex 4mo agoAll the R&D and industrial capacity building we have done since the 70s could have been accelerated if we had invested in it as much as we invested in nuclear, or oil, or gas, or coal. With public money. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-government-rigs-the-market-in-favor-of-fossil-fuels/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-g...
- vablings 4mo agoThat's exactly the point of SMRs. Do away with the huge capital allocation of public funds to overspend and overrun on infrastructure projects.
- slibhb 4mo agoWe don't live in a command economy. Nuclear and solar both great and our only stance should be encouraging both.