Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Andy May's avatar

I agree that more nuclear powerplants are needed and that the US is lagging in this critical area. I hope this gets fixed. However this statement from the post makes no sense:

"we should expect continuing technological innovation and improvements such that EVs take over the world."

For sure EVs have their place, for example: Amazon delivery vans, taxis, and short commute personal cars. But taking over the world?? I doubt it, cars used to go on vacations, long-haul trucking, aviation, ships, long-haul trains, and farm equipment will all be gasoline/diesel indefinitely. EVs will remain a niche product, like solar. For one thing, the batteries are currently too dangerous and EVs are banned in many places for this reason - this will not change, safer batteries don't go as far.

Expand full comment
Steve Ballenger's avatar

You state the assumption “Let’s also assume that the world wishes to reach net-zero carbon dioxide… “. One of the things missing in the summary is cost. There is a small percentage of the population who have that wish no matter what, those who believe climate change is an impending disaster. For most other people, the question of “at what cost” inevitably comes up. One aspect of this is what freedoms. The summary doesn’t indicate how much of this is forced by governments, either indirectly through rebates/subsidies or through regulation/laws.

With regards to lack of nuclear, we can partially thank regulatory burdens for that. Hopefully the regulatory cost can be reduced (without safety impacts) and newer designs can be developed.

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/#:~:text=Annual%20ongoing%20regulatory%20costs%20range,burden%20of%20%2460%20million%20annually.

Expand full comment
37 more comments...

No posts