derek
@derek
Why is nuclear becoming the energy darling when solar is so clearly better? Solar is already proven to work at a variety of scales, has little-to-no downside, and needs to only become more efficient and ubiquitous.
7 replies
0 recast
11 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
On top of what others said: More upside exists in the technology. Solar has maybe x2 room for improvement left (we'll never exceed 100% efficiency and unlikely to even approach it), nuclear is a deep tech tree that is maybe x4 in the medium term and up to x1000 in the long term.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
derek
@derek
I think there’s equal potential upside in both solar and nuclear.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Say more
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
derek
@derek
Current solar vs current nuclear yes, you’re 100% right. But there are likely new ways of capturing, storing, transmitting that have yet to be unlocked. I’m not suggesting that folks get excited about solar farms 2.0. But I am saying that we need more ambitious solar ideas. Reflect Orbital (BHAG and may not work) is an example. Another way to frame it: who’s working on progressing us to a Dyson Sphere? A Dyson Sphere with the capability to direct that energy anywhere in the world based on market dynamics and demand is equally as (probably more) exciting to me as a nuclear reactor beside my water heater.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Ah fair, I wasn't thinking of solar as orbital retransmitting technology. It is a fun thought, which are we likely to achieve first: Harness the power of a star through a Dyson Sphere, or produce our own controlled power source equivalent to a star? In either case, I think we agree that we need to do more production in space in general.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
derek
@derek
Interesting hypothetical. My bet would be harnessing.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
