> For new developments, that's a risk inherent to every construction project.
Yes but I would argue that the level of risk involved is different between different energy options. $20B worth of solar and wind plus energy storage (including subsidies for home solar/storage and EVs with V2G capability) would carry less risk for this scenario than a single nuclear power plant.
I still think based on my back of the napkin calculations that solar + wind + storage (with the above mentioned subsidies) can be a compelling alternative to nuclear. It can be built faster, avoids the risk of a single large terrorist attack target, provides more energy independence for those who receive the subsidy for their own solar and storage, diversifies the grid, and avoids the need for a powerful government to control risky nuclear production facilities.
You can do a quick calculation and see that $10B of solar and $10B of storage will produce similar continuous base load power as the $20B Vogtle system.
Yes but I would argue that the level of risk involved is different between different energy options. $20B worth of solar and wind plus energy storage (including subsidies for home solar/storage and EVs with V2G capability) would carry less risk for this scenario than a single nuclear power plant.
I still think based on my back of the napkin calculations that solar + wind + storage (with the above mentioned subsidies) can be a compelling alternative to nuclear. It can be built faster, avoids the risk of a single large terrorist attack target, provides more energy independence for those who receive the subsidy for their own solar and storage, diversifies the grid, and avoids the need for a powerful government to control risky nuclear production facilities.
You can do a quick calculation and see that $10B of solar and $10B of storage will produce similar continuous base load power as the $20B Vogtle system.