[Houshalter]

This comment adds nothing and presents no argument. And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar? Nuclear technology already exists now. In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear. It may already be too late to stop climate change. Why wait another decade or two (or three...) until the kinks in solar are worked out (if they ever are...)?

It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear. And it could probably be improving a lot faster if it got the same level of interest. The major accidents everyone thinks of were all by decades old reactors. We know of much safer ways to do things, and we've learned a lot from those events.

Even coal will improve over time. All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining.

[mohawk]

Ok, let's find some common ground: we agree current nuclear reactors "could be a lot better". With very finite uranium, coal, and oil deposits on earth these forms of energy generation are only a short-term solution. As an aside, it would also be great to save those energy supplies for a dark and rainy day.

My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win.

Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles.

I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but that's what i think will happen.

[int_19h]

Even if you look U-235 alone, we have at least a couple centuries of it using conventional reactor tech, based on the known (explored) deposits, and very conservative estimates of how many more we will discover once existing stock starts to dwindle and prices start going up. Less conservative estimates give it closer to 5-6 centuries.

Now, if we use the tech to its fullest extent - meaning U-238 breeder reactors, rather than conventional U-235 ones - then fuel supply is infinite for all practical purposes. It also by and large solves the nuclear waste problem.

The main problem with nuclear isn't price per watt, it's the upfront cost. It requires a massive initial investment before you start getting anything useful out of it, and it requires an even more massive investment to start deriving benefits from scaling up. Solar, on the other hand, can start with a very small investment, and gradually ramp up, with a smooth curve of decreasing cost as scale increases. That makes it more attractive to private sector.

Nuclear is something that pretty much requires very long term planning and subsidies of the kind that only governments are really capable of, and in the era of democratic governments and nuclear scare among the general public, it's just not happening.

Well, except for countries that don't have to care about public opinion. China, for example, is building a lot of new nuclear plants. They aren't ignoring solar, either, and they're making massive investments there as well - but they're not putting all their eggs in one basket.

[mohawk]

I'm happy to hear uranium will last for a long time, gives us a good alternative if the sun ever stopped shining (e.g. massive volcano or asteroid). But it doesn't really change the economics.

China's newly installed solar capacity in 2016 was 34 GW and growing fast, they currently have 20 nuclear reactors under construction with a capacity of 20GW. So solar is quickly outpacing nuclear even in China, and the trend is in solar's favor.

The only saving grace that nuclear has at the moment is the lack of massive battery capacity. Electric cars are quickly changing that, and then it will be game over for nuclear.

I think that potential investors of nuclear reactors see this trend now as well, which is why interest in building new nuclear reactors in market-based economies is quickly fading (of course it depends on latitude at which point in time solar/wind dominance is reached). Quite substantial cost overruns are also typical for nuclear power plants, but rare for solar/wind.

[flukus]

> It's also a bit ridiculous to point out the improvement in solar technology, and ignore everything else. Sure solar technology is improving over time. So is nuclear.

The solar improvements are a lot more demonstrable, the nuclear ones are usually more theoretical due to the time and cost of building new reactors.

>In fact it's existed for quite awhile. We could have gotten rid of coal decades ago, if not for irrational fear.

Unsafe nuclear has existed for quite a while. Safe nuclear has yet to prove it's practical, which includes being cost effective against wind and solar.

> And I find this sentiment really hard to understand. Why bet everything on solar?

Parent mentioned wind and solar, and they didn't exclude others like hydro and tidal where appropriate. That's not betting everything on solar.

>All that discussion of the coming robot revolution surely applies to coal mining.

To a large extent it already has. New mines are human intensive to create, but largely automated after they're online.