| > The world will never become carbon neutral with PV and wind turbines. That's your assumption. Fact is: currently only renewable has a chance to make an actual impact for the next 30 years. > that renewables projects can be astonishingly expensive That was long ago and in the case of German offshore the reason was that the technology was challenging (because of deep and rough water in the North Sea) and needed to be developed and deployed. Today scaling it is a bit easier and more cost effective. Solar (PV) was also expensive in the first years, but it was always clear that mass-production would bring prices down. > the reason there's no nuclear research has nothing There is nuclear research. > you insist that there should be no investment in new nuclear tech because old tech No, I insist that there is no need to invest in DEPLOYMENT of nuclear, because the current nuclear has been proven to be a dead end. > insist we should invest in new renewables even if they are more expensive and don't scale as well as fossil No I insist to invest in renewables, because they are the cheapest and fastest way to REPLACE fossil. > And scary-nuclear-label aside, nuclear tech always showed a lot of promise, if only people like you didn't shoot it in the foot and then whined that it's limping. Nuclear has totally shown its own failure: remember Russia? Worst security. Remember Japan? Fully nuclear. One event took out ALL reactors. Remember the US? No expansion of Nuclear despite having all the technology in the last 30 years. Remember France? A single reactor under construction in last 20 years. Late and cost explosion. 70 years and no storage solution. 70 years and the cost building them is increasing. In the US, in France, ... in core nuclear power countries. > Now imagine what could be achieved if it actually received some solid support You believe in Santa Claus. Look around. Read the 'Nuclear World Report' and it paints a bleak picture. |