We invested massively in nuclear power in recent decades? Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville were the west ensuring nuclear investment while at the same time investing in the nascent renewable sector.
In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out.
How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?
I don't think you are trolling, as I see you answered along these lines before. But how exactly is "the West" reaping the benefits of scale, or climbing the learning curve, from 5 completely disparate projects, one of which failed? China is building more than that every single year, and has been doing that for a decade.
> Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?
This is a false dichotomy. I am not saying we should not build solar, or wind. And I am not even saying we should divert resources to nuclear. It should be the private sector. Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why? Don't you think people are smart enough to decide for themselves what do to with their money? If Bill Gates wants to invest his money in Terrapower, why do you think this is a problem? He invests a lot of money in renewables too.
Nuclear power has had a negative learning curve since its inception. How many hundreds of billions in subsidies to "climb it"?
Personally I think nuclear costs are closely aligned with the Baumol effect. [0] It is construction and does not become more efficient while wages rise as an economy develops.
Therefore there is a small timespan to build nuclear power with acceptable costs right when the economy is advanced enough to manage the technology but wages haven't caught up yet. Like they have done in the west.
> Are you saying even the private sector should not invest in nuclear? Why?
The private sector can do what it wants. But that is not what is happening in the west, the few construction projects that get greenlit do it on the base of absolutely massive subsidies.
Rockets were extrordinarily expensive, and getting more expensive with every passing decade, until SpaceX showed up. The Baumol effect is not a law of nature.
Yes. SpaceX was experimenting with private money until something stuck with a few tiny pushes from the government buying risky launch contracts after they had already proven themselves.
Looking at the current crop of nuclear startups they are relying on government handouts until those run out and then they silently disappear. Making absolutely no progress on the economics of nuclear power.
Today no one talks about NuScale anymore, because they had to admit not solving the problem. Instead it is the latest PowerPoint reactor still being able to claim it is cheap, fast to build and ”by default safe”.
5-10 years earlier the name of the game was mPower. Until that became too expensive.
In total something like a ~$100-200B investment in nuclear technology. The nuclear investment evidently did not pan out.
How much more should we have spent? Should we just push through no matter the cost even though we have cheaper alternatives?