The world needs nuclear power and we shouldn’t be afraid of it
I&#x27;m not scared of nuclear, but I&#x27;m terrified of climate change.<p>We don&#x27;t <i>need</i> nuclear, because we have other options for firm low-carbon energy (geothermal) and energy storage of surplus and super-cheap intermittent renewables (lithium ion, flow batteries, hydrogen, methane, compressed air, liquid air...).<p>If nuclear could compete on cost, we should go for it, but it can&#x27;t without a major tech breakthrough. The potential tech breakthroughs (SMRs) are far less technologically mature than any of our other options.<p>For example, we will definitely need to start producing hydrogen in order to decarbonize heavy industry (e.g. steel production, ammonia production, etc.).  So we <i>need</i> hydrogen infrastructure because it&#x27;s the only foreseeable path for several parts of our economy. It will get developed. Even this article, which is interpreted as heavily skeptical of hydrogen, sees a huge future for hydrogen on the grid:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;about.bnef.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-two-the-demand-side&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;about.bnef.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;liebreich-separating-hype-from-h...</a><p>Nuclear will only have a future if it can solve its construction problem, and compete with more modern technologies. As it is, it&#x27;s a dinosaur from the past, a legacy of a time before we had better tech. The more we learn about nuclear, the more expensive it seems to get, in contrast to pretty much any good tech.