On: It could cost $21B to clean up California’s oil si...

[labster]

> Society can't function without cheap energy.

> stuck on 1800s energy technology instead of moving to nuclear.

I really feel like your first paragraph refutes your second. Nuclear is a lot of things, but cheap is not one of them. Possibly because nuclear production is forced to account for externalities while fossil fuels aren’t, but it’s not cheap.

[meinheld111 → labster]

You seem to know the answer to your question already

[Arnt → meinheld111]

What question was that?

[stavros → Arnt]

That like-for-like, accounting for negative externalities in all alternatives, nuclear isn't that much more expensive.

[labster → stavros]

Nah, wind and solar are much cheaper, they just aren’t great for providing base load, without some other storage. Nuclear is very good at base load but makes a bad peaker (and is expensive). Gas is also “cheaper” when you ignore externalities, which most places do.

[Arnt → labster]

Digressing... sometimes when people talk that way about solar, it sounds as if I couldn't read outdoors on an overcast day.

[stavros → labster]

Well, sure, oranges are cheaper than apples, but that doesn't help me much when I want to make apple pie.

[labster → stavros]

I strongly advise against putting fissible materials in your apple pie.

[danaris → labster]

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

[Arnt → stavros]

Strange. I have looked the sentences preceding/surrounding every question mark in the thread now, and don't see a question matching that description.

[stavros → Arnt]

Not every question has a question mark, does it.