I think it’s a mistake to favour one technology over another. Ultimately, there will always be lots we don’t know about the future path of either technology.
If we are lobbying for changing energy policy then we should focus on ensuring externalities (CO2 emissions, air pollution, and waste) are priced in, that intermittency costs are priced in correctly, that badly-designed (e.g. based on misconceptions around risk) regulations don’t increase the costs of a given source, and that each energy source can compete on its own merits without undue favouritism.
That said, I think that chart you shared gives us reason to be unsatisfied with the status quo around nuclear. It should be getting cheaper but for whatever reason we aren’t building enough to benefit from Wright’s law.
I think it’s a mistake to favour one technology over another. Ultimately, there will always be lots we don’t know about the future path of either technology.
If we are lobbying for changing energy policy then we should focus on ensuring externalities (CO2 emissions, air pollution, and waste) are priced in, that intermittency costs are priced in correctly, that badly-designed (e.g. based on misconceptions around risk) regulations don’t increase the costs of a given source, and that each energy source can compete on its own merits without undue favouritism.
That said, I think that chart you shared gives us reason to be unsatisfied with the status quo around nuclear. It should be getting cheaper but for whatever reason we aren’t building enough to benefit from Wright’s law.
I’m all for pricing in carbon and sensible policy that regulates in proportion to our best estimate of the risk!