On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical dependencies'.
I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open inspections are possible for those bold enough to set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
"print energy for free" is obvious nonsense. Have you bothered looking at the real numbers? Amount of energy that reaches a particular place, efficiency and COST of the system to collect it?
Yes deep sunbelt is a current requirement to break even on short term corp quarterly profit bullshit timescales. Longer term amortization vs hardware failure rate and maintenance seems doable there too, even a latitude out. There seems to be more efficiency yet to come, combined with what a global shift from hydrocarbon could do to economics there. Look at the installed base growth curve, they're not all dreaming lefty activists throwing their money away, there's serious corps in there going for it. So shoot me if I'm a bit bullish on nuke and solar / wind. For the next decade at least while efficiency, production, installs, and geopolitical / acceptance matures to be able to tell for sure.