Why impose externalities on others when solar and wind are so cheap and less risky? It seems like proponents fall for technological aspirationalism without considering pragmatic consequences and risks of shoveling enormous sums of money for unnecessary risks and inefficient allocations of capital because it's seems just barely unobtainable or blocked by "them" when it's simply economically unviable.
Nuclear works now. We just have to build it.
Intermittent renewables supplying an industrial society does not. And there is no way to get from here to there except a lot of handwaving and "magic happens here".
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/20100608webcontentchicagosli...
Nuclear fans could only dream of this rate of improvement.
Nuclear doesn't work in the sense of being competitive. It's behind and falling farther behind with each passing day.
The best time to have given up on nuclear was decades ago. The second best time is now.
Nuclear doesn't need this rate of improvement, because it was always cheap.
> Nuclear doesn't work in the sense of being competitive.
Empirically false.
Also: if it weren't competitive, Germany wouldn't have had to outlaw nuclear, it just would have disappeared on its own.
> The best time to have given up on nuclear was decades ago.
Your incorrect and unsubstantiated opinion is not shared by the rest of the world.
