[ncmncm]

It might be not unreasonably unsafe, compared to e.g. coal (which will be phased out). But as an investment it is even riskier than FRC fusion. The ratepayers of South Carolina were made to invest $30B in a fission project that will, in the end, produce exactly zero watt-hours of energy. But might burn even more money, first.

[throwaway894345]

Yes, large fission projects probably aren’t the way to go these days—I’d rather see investment in Small Nuclear Reactor technology. More importantly though, considering the alternative (failing to mitigate climate change) the risk-adjusted cost of nuclear is minuscule. Moreover, I don’t understand how it is “riskier” than fusion, which still hasn’t been deployed anywhere in any form?

[ncmncm]

You are not factoring in opportunity cost: that $30B would buy a hell of a lot of solar panels and wind turbines, with perfect reliability. Displacing a megawatt of carbon-generated power now is worth a lot more than displacing that same megawatt in 10 years, because 10 megawatt-years worth of carbon did not, thereby, go into the atmosphere.

[throwaway894345]

> You are not factoring in opportunity cost: that $30B would buy a hell of a lot of solar panels and wind turbines, with perfect reliability.

What do you mean "with perfect reliability"? Do you mean it can buy the panels and turbines and batteries? How much reliable energy capacity does $30B buy?

> Displacing a megawatt of carbon-generated power now is worth a lot more than displacing that same megawatt in 10 years, because 10 megawatt-years worth of carbon did not, thereby, go into the atmosphere.

Yes, there are different return-on-investment curves and the short term obviously favors things which can be deployed quickly. The question is which pays off the best for the relevant timescales. Also, we should invest in both--now isn't the time to pinch pennies nor to put all of our eggs in one basket.