That seems like a good deal, even without economies of scale...
Wouldn't doing that undo a lot of the gains from this? If we export fossil fuels instead of burning them, we aren't really decarbonizing. We're just having the carbonization take place somewhere else.
Does it? Or does it simply increase the amount of fossil fuels being used elsewhere?
> defunds from some of the worst governments on earth.
That has nothing to do with decarbonization, though.
so we need to separate: carbon production and carbon emissions.
a lot of so called decarbonized industries are decarbonized simply because they outsourced carbon intensive parts to third world, but carbon is still being produced and emitted.
I think this is why some people are supporting De-Growth movement, that just by reducing consumption of nonessential stuff, we would decrease carbon production and emissions globally
[1]: 2009 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27...
The only question is if nuclear can offer something compelling to keep it in the mix. We have roughly 100 1GW of nuclear reactors in the US that are reaching end of life, and 90% of those communities would like to see replacements to keep the jobs in town. However, nobody will ever invest in a project that looks like Vogtle, due to the cost. Unfortunately, recent projects in France, Finland, and the UK all look quite similar in cost of dollars and time.
Which is to say, that nuclear will not be able to provide a climate solution at all. It's too late, we can not even build 100 rectors in the next 15 years to replace what needs to be retired!
If nuclear advocates want more nuclear, they need to focus on the details and the engineering and the management, not merely rah-rah for the tech. The devil is in the details, and projects like Vogtle have virtually guaranteed that nuclear will not be built in the US in quantity for at least a generation.
No utility going forward is going to sign a contract that puts them on the hook for cost escalation (which turned out to be this contract too, once Westinghouse went bankrupt.)
The only way for nuclear or be built in advanced economies is to have some government provide subsidies far beyond what renewables have ever reviewed. And at least with renewables there was the goal of making it cheaper for the next round of production. We don't that get that benefit when we throw an extra $10B at a nuclear build.