[Lakeshark]

The market is only "evolving" because wind energy is a green wet dream and it is being entirely propped up.

It has no viability in any market that actually has other alternatives. It's okay in the arctic and similar places that have no grid, but anywhere in the continental US, it's a disaster that will help no one.

[wolf78]

The market is only "evolving" because wind energy is a green wet dream and it is being entirely propped up.

So what's the difference to basically any other form of energy generation? Coal wouldn't have been viable were it not for railways that get the coal from the mines to the power plants. Nuclear was dependant on subsidies for decades.

It has no viability in any market that actually has other alternatives. It's okay in the arctic and similar places that have no grid, but anywhere in the continental US, it's a disaster that will help no one.

I'd put it otherwise: It's not competitive in the US because there is an existing system that is paid for and works reasonably well. However, the US is just 4.5% of the world population and macroeconomic conditions differ. In rural India conventional power plants are far less reliable and soot (from coal rich in radioactive elements) caused countless (radiation/uranium) poisonings in children there.

Don't get me wrong: I also like nuclear (far safer than coal), I really love fusion and breeder research. But one should also admit that the reason France had success with nuclear power plants was that the French loved having the bomb and that Électricité de France was/is a socialist entity.