Yes, dealing with the nuke energy question is frustrating.
That's why more solutions are better than simply getting cornered into the nuke box, as you suggest, fuming at the stupid public for being willing to buy alternative "boutique esoteric" production, and denying nuke plant construction.
In the free market, it's hard to beat the tantalizing opportunity for a dollar or two per watt solar. That scales to gigawatts better than nukes, due to permit cost, lack of gov't intervention, and even construction time. The timeframe for a nuke plant is a decade.
How long has nuke power been researched, and how many gov't dollars have gone into it, compared to any other alternative ... not a good return on investment, regardless of who is to blame. PG&E in California abandoned $6 billion (something like that) in nuke plants, which translates to 3 gigawatts of solar panels, if the cost comes down to $2/watt, and free fuel costs thereafter. That doesn't include gov't subsidies for nuke plan insurance, development costs, etc.
Looks like we won't do what France has done, so we'd better do some serious thinking and keep an open mind.
Hey, I'm a fan of big science. Freeman Dyson and his team at GA built the first real safe reactor, and it wasn't allowed to be used in this country. Too bad. Can't change the facts, tho'. Just gives you ulcers. |
