So with renewable getting cheaper by the minute, how can we justify the cost of nuclear?
Renewable is going to be so cheap that losses in transmission over distance will be acceptable. Meanwhile here in UK we have costs for nuclear *guaranteed* for the next thirty odd years.
Yes it was back then, but it isn’t now so we ought to weaning ourselves off of it rather than building new, which will cost many billions over their lifetime. Half of which will be spent building and then decommissioning.
In a couple of thousand years, if we are still here, our ancestors will curse us for the nuclear waste we are going to leave for them to clean up.
So with renewable getting cheaper by the minute, how can we justify the cost of nuclear?
Renewable is going to be so cheap that losses in transmission over distance will be acceptable. Meanwhile here in UK we have costs for nuclear *guaranteed* for the next thirty odd years.
Exactly. Solar will be dirt cheap.
I think the original reason why nuclear was added to the mix was to diversify the risk, back when fossil fuels were the mainstream option.
But nowadays, that doesn’t make sense anymore. We already have diversity:
Yes it was back then, but it isn’t now so we ought to weaning ourselves off of it rather than building new, which will cost many billions over their lifetime. Half of which will be spent building and then decommissioning.
In a couple of thousand years, if we are still here, our ancestors will curse us for the nuclear waste we are going to leave for them to clean up.