Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
Well, is it cheaper to have hundreds of millions of people purchase and install extra equipment, or for thousands of power plants to change over to a Gen IV Nuclear plant (or whatever other safe, cheap, consistent energy source is found)?
|
*shrug* Like I said, it's only a concept. I think nuclear power is an excellent choice for the next hundred years or so, but eventually I'd like to see that phased out also. Nuclear waste is very expensive to treat and store, and a large part of the public is still afraid of nuclear power. They may be wrong, but it might be easier for them to buy some equipment than allow you to build a power plant next to their town.
If a large part of the public decided or were persuaded to buy the extra equipment in my example, prices should go down drastically. I think the government could chip subsidies or tax breaks. Then we can use solar during the sunny days, and nuclear the rest. As time progresses, I'd hope we could go farther than that.
The concept has some holes, as all unresearched things do. I've merely read a solitary magazine article, and I thought it was neat. I'm here to learn.
