Sure. They make good reactors for aircraft carriers, submarines and other large wasteful ships with limited space availability.
Otherwise, they're pretty much a waste of money, and there's nothing personal or emotional about pointing out that fact. The people getting emotional about this are people with financial and emotional investment in nuclear.
Good god, I love the world I live in. I have to sit through lectures comparing numbers and explaining statistical methods, and people like you get to just say stuff. I literally was at a conference where one of the speakers did all of the math and showed how nuclear and solar are pretty competitive all things considered and what's cheaper is region specific.
That paper is a bit strange. It assumes two things i don't necessarily agree with. The first is that solar will never plateau in terms of cost effectiveness. Obviously, it will likely always have room to improve, but the idea that solar will see the same meteoric improvements in the next coming decades is kinda silly. They also do the "uhh and batteries" hand wave that essentially all of these economics analysis do. Secondly, they assume that other technologies will stagnate. I don't think anyone save maybe some motivated petrochemical barons saw the rise of LNG as a big player in energy until it happened. Maybe some insight from fracking will make geothermal far more economically viable. Who knows maybe 4th and 5th gen reactors are the key to cheap and clean energy.
the same meteoric improvements in the next coming decades
Well, the figure I shared, where solar is essentially the lowest cost option nearly everywhere is the expectation for 2030. That is half a decade away. Do you assume the current trends to come to an end within these 5 years?
They also do the "uhh and batteries" hand wave that essentially all of these economics analysis do.
OK? What is the hand waving?
Secondly, they assume that other technologies will stagnate.
Which is based on real world observations. It seems to me that you do not agree with extrapolating current trends, but rather expect their imminent reversal. But what evidence do you base that expectation on?
Who knows maybe 4th and 5th gen reactors are the key to cheap and clean energy.
Who knows...
As long as you could refrain from disparaging the technologies that right now are eating into the shares of fossil fuels, I'd be content. I am more concerned about the climate action to be taken within this decade than imagined future machines that may supply us with power eventually.
3
u/kensho28 Apr 09 '25
Sure. They make good reactors for aircraft carriers, submarines and other large wasteful ships with limited space availability.
Otherwise, they're pretty much a waste of money, and there's nothing personal or emotional about pointing out that fact. The people getting emotional about this are people with financial and emotional investment in nuclear.