It is sad that this has become a topic of the culture wars. Nothing good comes out of this, certainly not a rational weighing of the pros and cons of nuclear power.
I’m particularly interested in how they plan to finance reactors in a grid dominated by solar. I wouldn’t be surprised if they legally allow the building of new reactors but then fail to find investors. But perhaps they plan on using them as some sort of strategic assets and will just run them at a loss?
We need to increase energy output by an order of magnitude in order to upgrade civilization to the next level. Does solar offer a pathway to doing that today, once you account for the costs of battery storage?
Nuclear, moreover, keeps us on the tech tree for space exploration. I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
Why shouldn't our civilization be defined by how efficiently we use the energy we gather? Or the lifespan and health of our citizens?
Claiming that the sum of a civilization is how much energy it controls is just a meme from the 50's. It's a shitty, short-sighted metric. One that would consider building a nuclear reactor and dumping the power into a bank of resistors as contributing "more progress" than growing abundant food, or protecting the ecosystem.
It's our civilization, we can define progress however we want.
adrianN · · focus · HN ↗
I’m particularly interested in how they plan to finance reactors in a grid dominated by solar. I wouldn’t be surprised if they legally allow the building of new reactors but then fail to find investors. But perhaps they plan on using them as some sort of strategic assets and will just run them at a loss?
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
Nuclear, moreover, keeps us on the tech tree for space exploration. I don’t think solar is going to lead us to fusion or antimatter powered spaceships.
diarrhea · · focus · HN ↗
Why?
someonebaggy · · focus · HN ↗
solid_fuel · · focus · HN ↗
Why shouldn't our civilization be defined by how efficiently we use the energy we gather? Or the lifespan and health of our citizens?
Claiming that the sum of a civilization is how much energy it controls is just a meme from the 50's. It's a shitty, short-sighted metric. One that would consider building a nuclear reactor and dumping the power into a bank of resistors as contributing "more progress" than growing abundant food, or protecting the ecosystem.
It's our civilization, we can define progress however we want.