>Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh
Because the related lobby pays well and a huge power station project (which runs well into the tens of billions) has much larger space for bribes
Because the related lobby pays well and a huge power station project (which runs well into the tens of billions) has much larger space for bribes
How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
> when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
Peak oil is a way off yet, and the reason we need to stop using sequestered carbon is because atmospheric insulation is increasing steadily as a direct result of fossil fuel usage. Not because of ground supply shortfall.
The current events highlight the supply chain issue - not a shortage of oil, it's a shortfall in "oil going anywhere".
> Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there
Again, country by country - nuclear makes sense in China, the US to a degree, France, the UK (despite the snails progress) to a degree ... but makes no sense in, say, Australia that has abundant sunlight, fresh air that moves, and near zero prior experience with nuclear power and plant construction (See: the very recent Australian CSIRO report on energy futures for Australia)