ksec 20 hours ago

I searched on Google and got an answer from Quora[1] . I wonder if anyones else on HN can shine some light.

>Alvin Weinberg estimated that build and operating costs would both be about 80% cheaper than existing water-moderated nuclear power technology (which he also invented in addition to the MSR)

Solar and Wind has become so cheap and building so fast. Even myself as an Nuclear supporter ( I said pro nuclear I mean I am not against Nuclear ) I often wonder is it worth it? Britain is expected to "double" its Wind Power by 2030. As things continue to accelerate Wind and Solar may take 50% of energy production in next 10 years.

10 years is a very short time in the world of Nuclear. I know we need base load but I am starting to question if Nuclear makes any sense given the relative speed of development both are moving at.

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-estimated-cost-of-building...

  • theGeatZhopa 20 hours ago

    it will be of use, whereever the circumstances do not allow solar/wind or when the production needs to be constantly.

    just like in the desert, one can use solar. But what about the night? what aboit cleaning the panels?? so, there, nuclear would make sense.

    With Thorium, it seems, its less a problem as with Uran. Urine in Uran is the death of Iran.