I really don't like the idea of waiting for better battery technology to save us, but 200 years of uranium seems like a pretty good time frame for developing better batteries.
I mean I'm not going to say "no" if somehow we were able to start pushing on mass nuclear power, but I don't think it's worth the effort and time to invest in when wind and solar are so much cheaper and easier to set up. That's sort of where I'm at.
Energy storage is the issue. You still need to power the hospitals and refrigerators when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Ideally we'd use less energy, but you still need to have *some* energy all the time. We don't have the battery technology to do that with wind and solar.
I really don't like the idea of waiting for better battery technology to save us, but 200 years of uranium seems like a pretty good time frame for developing better batteries.
I mean I'm not going to say "no" if somehow we were able to start pushing on mass nuclear power, but I don't think it's worth the effort and time to invest in when wind and solar are so much cheaper and easier to set up. That's sort of where I'm at.
Energy storage is the issue. You still need to power the hospitals and refrigerators when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Ideally we'd use less energy, but you still need to have *some* energy all the time. We don't have the battery technology to do that with wind and solar.
np. molten salt.
https://newatlas.com/mit-molten-salt-battery-membrane/53085/
So, go almost all the way to building a 4th gen reactor, and repurpose it as a battery?
Sounds... Not bright.
lol