Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UniversalMomentum t1_ixg5kus wrote

Reply to comment by Beachdaddybravo in The ESA aims to make 24/7 space-based solar energy harvesting a reality | Solaris program will study space-based solar power amid rising energy concerns by chrisdh79

Nuclear has a lot of negatives, meltdown and high insurance liability is one, but also it's hard to export, complex and it's highly proprietary so most nations will never use it. It has water use issues and you still have to source uranium which means somebody has mine and ship uranium. It also one of the more expensive ways to generation power.

Looking down the road 10-20 years the projected cost of solar/wind and energy storage will create a lower Levelized Cost of Energy than what nuclear investments would yield AND you will be investing in technology that can meet economics of scale requirements and be mass produced in factories and exported everywhere.

Fusion seems to be the only chance nuclear has and even then most nations don't want to rely a the 1-5 nations that can build and maintain something like that to have that much leverage over them. The simpler solution that does the job is really what we are looking for.

0

Beachdaddybravo t1_ixh8ylm wrote

Nuclear is the only solution that can provide a constant and steady level of energy at what we need 24/7 to hit meet our demand.

2

ItsAConspiracy t1_ixm2t6x wrote

I totally support nuclear but solar power satellites would also do that. They'd be in geostationary orbit, putting them in sunlight 99.5% of the time.

1

Beachdaddybravo t1_ixn6eut wrote

There are much more problems when it comes to solar satellites. Ease of repair being just the first one that comes to mind. People are averse to nuclear mostly because of ignorance.

1