Beachdaddybravo t1_ixd9u1c wrote
Lots of flying debris to hit panels out there and everyone keeps dancing around the reality that nuclear is our best option for clean power. If we bothered to recycle spent fuel so we’re not just using 7% or so and casting the rest aside, all the better. Then again, we’re the same bunch of idiots that think Chernobyl is a real risk in the west and shut down Yucca mountain.
UniversalMomentum t1_ixg5kus wrote
Nuclear has a lot of negatives, meltdown and high insurance liability is one, but also it's hard to export, complex and it's highly proprietary so most nations will never use it. It has water use issues and you still have to source uranium which means somebody has mine and ship uranium. It also one of the more expensive ways to generation power.
Looking down the road 10-20 years the projected cost of solar/wind and energy storage will create a lower Levelized Cost of Energy than what nuclear investments would yield AND you will be investing in technology that can meet economics of scale requirements and be mass produced in factories and exported everywhere.
Fusion seems to be the only chance nuclear has and even then most nations don't want to rely a the 1-5 nations that can build and maintain something like that to have that much leverage over them. The simpler solution that does the job is really what we are looking for.
Beachdaddybravo t1_ixh8ylm wrote
Nuclear is the only solution that can provide a constant and steady level of energy at what we need 24/7 to hit meet our demand.
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixm2t6x wrote
I totally support nuclear but solar power satellites would also do that. They'd be in geostationary orbit, putting them in sunlight 99.5% of the time.
Beachdaddybravo t1_ixn6eut wrote
There are much more problems when it comes to solar satellites. Ease of repair being just the first one that comes to mind. People are averse to nuclear mostly because of ignorance.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments