Nuclear is the competition for Tesla energy. But can it compete, even when we only consider price and time to deploy?
Climate change only justifies nuclear if you believe nuclear can supply electricity more cheaply and ramp more quickly than solar plus battery. Ratepayers and taxpayers in the S.E. US are still paying billions for the bungled construction of Westinghouse nuclear plants in Georgia and South Carolina that were abandoned at huge loss because they were uneconomical. I'm with Elon on the safety and environmentally friendliness of a well-engineered, well-built and well-operated nuclear plant but I've never seen him address the cost issue. And I do lack confidence that big projects like this will end up being well-engineered, well-built and well-operated while remaining on budget. Failure on any one of the first three concerns is not really an option and failure on the fourth concern, cost, removes any incentive to risk failure on any of the first three concerns.
I don't know, maybe big oil got their fingers in the mix to make sure the Westinghouse projects were FUBARed from the beginning. In any case, it can take 15 years to engineer and build a modern nuclear plant and that's enough time to ramp solar and batteries to degrees previously thought impossible. And isn't this in Tesla's business plan? Battery and solar should be a very profitable business with plenty of room for others to join in.
www.brusselstimes.com
pushevs.com
www.gm-volt.com
techcrunch.com
teslamotorsclub.com
www.teslarati.com
