[bee_rider]

Invest in both, I don’t think nuclear is the future but wouldn’t mind being wrong.

To pay for it, raise taxes on fossil fuels.

[jillesvangurp]

Invest proportional to the risk. Nuclear is a very risky investment. But it might pay off. The financial risk level is why it is so dependent on state subsidies and tax payer money. Without that, nuclear operators would be going bankrupt and no sane investor would risk their money on it. The risks include lengthy delays, cost overruns, policy issues, safety related cost, and much more. Some of those things might be fixable. But there are no guarantees. And without prices for nuclear energy coming down substantially, the resulting technology is not viable in the market. It might happen but it's not looking like that would happen before there's a few more tw more renewable capacity online in the next few decades.

Solar, wind, and other renewables are very popular investments right now. There are very clear learning effects visible when implementing them resulting on year on year cost reductions. These investments have a very reliable ROI. A very predictable and quick implementation. And they are easy to scale. That's why so much new capacity is coming online vs. the absolutely pitiful amounts of nuclear being added to the grid. The price gap is basically an order of magnitude and growing. You get about 10x more capacity in renewables for the same money. The realized capacity gap also is much larger for the same reason.

[baq]

It doesn’t look like we have any alternatives in the next three decades until fusion is viable :wink:

[bee_rider]

Yea it always seems like there’s some technology right around the corner that’s a better plan than the renewables we could be installing right now. Might as well use petrochemicals for another couple quarters!