It's not economical anymore compared to renewables once you factor in decommissioning costs.
Heck if you actually factored in the externalities then coal/oil/gas would also not be economical.
Heck if you actually factored in the externalities then coal/oil/gas would also not be economical.
"Meanwhile, global warming lurches ahead. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. So do solar and wind power. But do you know how much of the world’s primary energy comes from fossil fuels today? It’s 81 percent—the same as in 2006."
I didn't check the numbers by myself, but it sounds reasonable: while renewable sources grow, the consumption grows as well. So maybe we need nuclear power too in addition to solar/wind/etc? I don't see too much alternatives around.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18411991
[2] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-we-nee...
Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables.
Here in The Netherlands there's pressure to close the last coal power stations. The liberals (i.e. Republicans minus the religious and racist blocks) have been pushing for new nuclear power stations only for the energy suppliers themselves to turn around and call them lunatics because renewables are better.
Sure, let's ignore energy storage and subsidies altogether. I would believe e.g. solar thermal in Spain to be cost-effective, but these empty claims of "cheap renewables" are tiring.