Comments by "Daniel Larson" (@daniellarson3068) on "Can Green Energy Actually Work? (Exploring Clean Energy Economics) || Peter Zeihan" video.

Build nukes - Over the 60 year life, the fuel is relatively cheap and there should be more flexibility in location. You should be able to build the nuke close to the need for the power and not string transmission lines a thousand miles from the source to the load. There are newer nuclear designs that take less materials and can be constructed faster reducing the capital cost. Any journey begins with a single step. Once we begin to build some of these the path will become clear.
5
@whazzat8015 You thinkin' spent fuel? That stuff can be recycled. By the way Plutonium has a half life of more than 20,000 years. Think long term.
2
@A B Power will be available 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. Continuous power contributes to continuous cash flow for businesses. Less developed countries may only receive power for a few hours a day and this is not conducive to productivity. The renewables path will lead to intermittent supply unless backed up by fossil fuels. Unfortunately. despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, large amounts of energy are not easily stored for future use.
1
@whazzat8015 To bad for him (or her). Crime does not pay. Near instant Karma may apply. However, I doubt whether we will see a loss of science, technology and record keeping where folks won't know where the stuff is.
1
@davidchristie696 Nuclear submarines use the same fuel for 20 years. Designs differ. At present the commercial nuclear plants have a refueling outage once every two years. It's the design. Your statements are good, but there are many variations in how nuclear plants can be designed and built.
1