|
|
|
|
|
by SonicTheSith
1635 days ago
|
|
The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fairly high. On the other hand once shit hits the fans with climate change shit really hits the fan but with the quantity of New York City's total sewage from the last 5 decades. The thought that we will be able to recycle nuclear waste in 200+ years is more reliable than any promise Elon Musk has ever given. |
|
Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question.
As far as I can see that answer may be yes in one specific circumstance - when you already have a nuclear plant with another 5+ years of life left. i.e. when the insane capex is a sunk cost.
In all other instances it only really comes close if you assume the risk of nuclear disaster is close to zero or if you pretend that the precipitous fall in solar/wind/battery prices didnt happen yet.