Lots of arguing today (again!) over at Slashdot on whether Solar or Nuclear is best (i.e. most cost effective) following an article repeated in the New York Times claiming Solar power is now cheaper than Nuclear power - and a quick rebuttal from atomic insights claiming the reverse.
It's all a bit tit-for-tat : no, they shouldn't have factored in the Solar subsidies when comparing the two - yes, they should have included the cost of reprocessing nuclear waste + insuring the things (which governments currently cover the cost of). What matters though, is not who wins this argument-based-battle, but who will win the overall power-war. That Solar can even be compared to nuclear cost-wise is something that would never have been attempted a decade ago, and shows the trend of Solar technology. Following this forward, it's clear that Solar will soon genuinely be more cost effective than Nuclear - even if some argue it might not be now.
No comments:
Post a Comment