HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
It’s not immediate though because nuclear takes years to build and has huge up front costs, so the economics require a guaranteed energy
price floor for investors to make their money back.
That’s a key factor holding nuclear back, because the investor expectation that energy prices will be lower due to technology advances in renewables (and are currently too low due to the technologies that unlocked the potential for shale oil). That, and no one wants to live near a nuclear power plant.
For nuclear to go ahead you need big government to force through planning permission and guarantee profits for investors by doing stuff like buying energy at a guaranteed price over a long term contract, indemnifying losses and setting a price on carbon through a carbon tax or carbon market
Chernobyl {nm} Jun 28, 13:56
Fukashima {nm} Jun 28, 14:30
Where's your evidence that nuclear is FARRRRR safer than solar, wind, geothermal, ocean wave... {nm} Jul 01, 11:12
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy I also said PRACTICAL solution, wind (which results in Jul 01, 11:59
also https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html {nm} Jul 01, 11:59
No, you did NOT say "practical". You said "any other power source". {nm} Jul 01, 15:51
"only real, existing, scientifically sound solution". That = practical. {nm} Jul 02, 08:28
It’s not immediate though because nuclear takes years to build and has huge up front costs, so the economics require a guaranteed energy Jun 28, 15:50
Point is if CO2 emissions are a threat to our existence, its the only currently existing solution. {nm} Jul 02, 08:29
Point is, it’s not as great a solution as you think it is. {nm} Jul 03, 05:29
a bettter, more practical & evidence based is ____? {nm} Jul 04, 06:25
I gave my reasons in my post, and you haven't addressed any of them. {nm} Jul 04, 09:39
