The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[DJC]

Which is a great example, fudging the numbers by making one source operate at peak capacity far longer than it really can, and the competitor systems redundant /decommissioned long before they are done.

[member=324]DJC[/member] , I understand why you take the position that you take, I get it, and I agree whole heartedly with the goals behind green energy, renewables and low carbon, but long term the public and political debate has to be genuine or it's going to end in energy anarchy. The end result of all sides selling the public gold painted turds!

The bottom line is that the decision-makers, that is, the corporates, banks, super funds, investors, economists, futurists, treasurers, heads of state, politburos, etc, have crunched the numbers and the end result is that they have decided that nuclear power is too expensive and has too great a lead time to make a meaningful difference to climate change.  There will be ongoing minor growth in funds spent on nuclear power as small modular reactors and/or molten salt reactors replace some conventional nuclear power plants but there are no signs of a major take up.  According to PwC's "The Future of Energy", it is unlikely that the global funds spent on nuclear power generation will rise above 12% of the total global power generation spend.