‘If done intelligently’ is really one hell of an ‘if’.
Yes, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies would not cost very much. (On some assumptions about nuclear power, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies might have negative cost).
But the more relevant question is the cost of the climate change mitigation strategies we actually get.
I don’t think nuclear power is currently a cost-effective approach to mitigating global warming. It only really makes sense when geopolitical concerns are a factor, eg threats to tankers transporting LNG to Europe or Japan.
Elaborate? Assuming there were no political blockers, why is it not cost effective? Is it because the energy output of a plant is limited by how far the energy can travel, and therefore you’d need many plants?
‘If done intelligently’ is really one hell of an ‘if’.
Yes, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies would not cost very much. (On some assumptions about nuclear power, intelligent climate change mitigation strategies might have negative cost).
But the more relevant question is the cost of the climate change mitigation strategies we actually get.
I don’t think nuclear power is currently a cost-effective approach to mitigating global warming. It only really makes sense when geopolitical concerns are a factor, eg threats to tankers transporting LNG to Europe or Japan.
Elaborate? Assuming there were no political blockers, why is it not cost effective? Is it because the energy output of a plant is limited by how far the energy can travel, and therefore you’d need many plants?