And they are all uneconomical.
The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.
They aren’t an efficient use of resources.
Amazon had their walk in walk out stores.
AI was meant to track what you put in the basket and charge you without you going through checkout.
They launched as an AI store.
Humans were looking at cases and were just meant to be “error correction”.
They were doing 80% of the work of tracking the images and barcodes into actual products.
Amazon closed the store.
Lots of “AI” systems are currently in this state. A computer can do the easy 10 to 20% of the job. Humans are doing the rest.
Venture capital are just investing in anything that looks like it’s working on “AI”. Even when it’s currently taking more human labour than the work did previously.
Companies are launching now as “AI” gambling on getting that percentage up otherwise they end up late to market. Lots will fail to actually use AI and probably fold.
Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it’s worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.
Germany shut down it’s reactors as they reached end of life. It isn’t economical to build new reactors.
Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.
If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it’s valuable. If you don’t, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.
Arguing it’s an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it’s replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.
Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That’s nuclear power.
Agreed.
Also, don’t waste money on experimenting with the others. Just build renewables and grid storage.