(arstechnica.com)

425 points nixass | 1 comments | 02 Apr 21 18:00 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

beders ◴[02 Apr 21 21:26 UTC] No.26676182[source]▶

Solar is now the cheapest form of energy. Ever.

Before you try to sink billions into nuclear energy, explain why we can't do it with solar + storage alone? Just one good reason. I've yet to hear anything substantive. All I keep hearing is soundbites from the nuclear and fossil fuel industry.

All is missing is the political will, not technology.

Use nuclear for situations in which there are no alternatives. Rovers on Mars or something.

replies(8): >>26676287 #>>26676405 #>>26676422 #>>26676440 #>>26676785 #>>26679063 #>>26680974 #>>26684544 #

jpxw ◴[02 Apr 21 21:59 UTC] No.26676405[source]▶

>>26676182 #

I don’t think we have efficient enough storage (yet ?), do we?

Can I get a source on solar being the cheapest energy source? That surprises me

replies(2): >>26676455 #>>26676516 #

1. notJim ◴[02 Apr 21 22:13 UTC] No.26676516[source]▶

>>26676405 #

Suppose nuclear requires various government supports to make the projects economically viable and in research for new reactor designs. Now suppose we put that same money into subsidizing renewables, and building a modern grid. Which one gives a better result?

Edit: to add an even spicier question, why not keep renewables + natural gas with carbon capture?

↑

Nuclear should be considered part of clean energy standard, White House says