@sgued @notjustbikes it was an excellent option we should have deployed more of in the 90's.

But it isn't the 90's any more.

@LovesTha Yeah, that's the thing.

When I was studying nuclear energy in University (because I was a huge proponent of it) it was the 90s, and we should've built a shitload of nuclear reactors then. It made sense.

But now? Nuclear rectors take ages to construct and they will not be as cheap as renewables.

Nuclear reactors may still make sense for powering heavy industrial applications though.

@notjustbikes @LovesTha

There was and interesting conversation between Robert Scheer and Thomas Bass (who wrote a book on Fukshima)

I have not fully investigated the assertions from Thomas, but he posits that nuclear was never viable, it was only ever a subsidy to enable weapons, there are obviously other positive and negative outcomes from nuclear, but this seems credible from my cursory understanding.

https://podcasts.captivate.fm/media/8b142d79-e9a0-474f-a9b0-42ea71256169/bob-and-bass-june-26-2026.mp3

@LovesTha @notjustbikes

If I remember the figures from Thomas, it was a while since I listened to it, the cost of nuclear excluding build, disposal, and decommissioning is about $170 /MWh where solar is about $40 /MWh inclusive. *I will probably listen to it again today and correct later.*

He describes it as "the most expensive way to boil water."

*I edited from what Thomas said in the recording, I had guessed too low on nuclear and too high on solar.*