You're viewing a single thread.
it's long past time we took businessman out of control and replaced them with scientists.
In which case they would choose Nuclear over Solar 9/10 times. I'm onboard
This might not be the case anymore, now that solar is dirt cheap.
But, as another commenter said, I'm onboard with any decision that scientists (including both energy and climate sciences) and engineers come up with working together.
Nuclear has few advantages over solar.
Solar + batteries.
~$1000/kW vs $6 - 10,000/kW in 2018, it is cheaper today; projected costs to drop to as low as $560/kW in 2050.
Add in the ~$150/kWh of grid scale storage with the associated switchgear to connect it to the grid.
For a 10MW + 20MWh solar system; you are looking at approx $13,000,000 + install costs of probably $2-3,000,000.
They would probably use nuclear for base load, until something better is found. But it won't "replace" solar.
With AI we will need loads of base load
I'm on board with whatever the scientists conclude. I'm not a scientist, so if they say nuclear, I'm behind nuclear. If they say solar, I'm behind solar. If they say wind, I'm behind wind. Trust scientists. If you're trained in science, definitely verify - there's some bad science out there for sure. But if you have no expertise in the area, just trust the scientific community.
No they wouldnt
Source: my ass
Source: worked with scientists for years. Theres a certain irony here when you made your claim without sources. Also you are very rude
I don't know a single who would, including myself.
Do you like... have an allergy to good ideas?
The down voters and you should maybe reread my comment and the one I replied to... Sorry to burst your bubble.
I did, it looks like an illogical dislike of nuclear. Not sure if it's ignorance or just an emotional response but you might want to do some research. A lot of people don't like things they don't understand.