Look at nuclear power. Might be the greatest and cleanest solution in theory. In practice, look at the revelations after Fukushima. Mismanagement, dramatically negligent maintenance, corruption. Would proper management have prevented the incident? Probably not, but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Without the tsunami, this might have continued for years to come and who knows how and when shit would've hit the fan in this alternate reality. Then the shitshow that is storing nuclear waste here in Germany. Again instead of listening to scientists and engineers in the end they dumped the metal containers inside an old salt mine. Big surprise, salt water lead to rapid corrosion and now they have to get them out again, but thankfully the tax payer cover that bullshit.
EROI on Solar and Wind power is good, but obviously almost 100% of the energy invested is from fossil fuels. We still spend more energy building solar panels than we receive from it. Which, in a way, is a good sign (it means the solar industry is growing). But no storage technology has been deployed at scale yet (which would reduce the EROI even more). Will it scale enough before a potential energy peak? Will nuclear?
If we elect another Kim jong/Stalin, or a neighbouring country does, they could blow up their own reactors to achieve destructive means. Solar and wind don't have that problem. The nuclear accidents are bad enough. Imagine the fallout from a plant in mexico takes out half of Texas, is that an acceptable risk in the pursuit of cheap electricity? Do you want to place the future of international political stability on the ability to regulate and police an industry? Both america and japan, two trustworthy and competent nations have had problems with nukes. Trading one bad scenario for another is not going to help.
Space based solar is a safer bet than nukes.
I assume you're being sarcastic there, but I wanted to add a salient point.
The Fukushima pump/generator problem should have been spotted long beforehand during site audits. I guarantee that any experienced data center audit team would have flagged that in about an hour.
So for anybody who invokes "act of god", etc. - let me tell you - Fukushima was preventable for less than one $5 grand site audit report.
Yes, I'm disgusted.
Or, put another way, do you trust Congress to make the right rules for operating a nuclear power station?
Rejecting nuclear is like taking the car instead of a plane because "planes aren't safe". Yes the fuck ups are more impressive, but if you factor everything nuclear is the lesser evil.
Force anyone responsible for the running of a plant to live with their family right next to it. Every plant should be headed by such people, or no plant. A bit like Walter Aigner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge .
Compared to ? Trusting people to manage coal power plants, mines, off shore platforms, oil tankers, &c. ?
> At the moment of reckoning when a reactor must finally be shutdown, you can bet a swift bankruptcy followed by skyrocketing local electricity rates.
France - lot of nuclear reactors : 13ct per KWh
Germany - shutting down nuclear reactors, still heavily relying on coal : 30ct per KWh
Except that its the safest form of energy production in the Western world and the waste majorities of countries have not had a single death from nuclear power.
Your statement flat out contradicts all evidence.
You can always spot the nuclear apologist because they gloss over the intractable people issues with managing reactors for literally decades without a single lapse.
I think nuclear history has amply shown that people cannot be trusted to manage reactors.
The horrible reality we're now facing is that once you build a reactor, political forces force re-certification decades beyond their original design - regardless of the interior condition of the reactor.
At the moment of reckoning when a reactor must finally be shutdown, you can bet a swift bankruptcy followed by skyrocketing local electricity rates.