US DOE to offer $6B to keep struggling nuclear reactors online
The problem nuclear has is that if you build something that can last literally half a century and more, the operational environment has changed so much.<p>People consider &#x27;nuclear&#x27; to be nuclear built many decades ago with technology principles from even a few decades earlier.<p>Building something that has such long term aspirations is inherently problematic.<p>At the same time, if you turn them off, how much of the replacement will be fossil?<p>If you actually had a carbon price, would they still not be competitive?<p>Nuclear is truly in a sad state. And those reactors if turned down can&#x27;t easily be replaced with any next generation designs because they don&#x27;t exist as a practical product right now.<p>I think in 100 years people will laugh at as saying things like &#x27;They had all the technology needed back then, why did they use it so badly&#x27;? I think that future will be nuclear fission powered, and not sun and solar powered.