I agree with your assessment, but there is still some chance that there's a big innovation in nuclear that we can't foresee.

Sure, it's been around nearly three quarters of a century, but there is a chance. People in the industry have not been focused on innovation, so there has not been much exploration of the space, and honestly even going back to the pre-TMI era it wasn't about driving down costs as much as massive projects.

Battery tech was stagnant for a long long time before the current decades-long innovation push in lithium ion. I think we could see something like this for nuclear, especially if they get away from thermal conversion to electricity and figure out direct conversion of some sort (this is pure sci-fi right now!)

I'm not hopeful, and it won't happen soon, but the space has not been fully explored, IMHO, so there's a non-zero chance oh something disruptive. Perhaps not with the current on the table proposals at the SMR startups, but outside of that there is room for a shakeup. Let's check again in the 2060s or 2080s we'll have something fantastic.

> People in the industry have not been focused on innovatio

What are you talking about? Countries all over the world threw BILLIONS at exactly this, and what came out in the end is...hilarious. If we'd have thrown the same kind of money on battery tech, we'd already have surpassed lithium-ion.

This is what it's about: you can spend every dollar only once, and there is no sane reason to throw a single dollar at nuclear when there is renewable energy, batteries, recycling, etc..

Innovation is not measured by dollars spent, it's measure by improvements. Of which there is pretty much zero for nuclear in decades.

Not sure what you are shocked about, or what point you are trying to make.

I try to clear up your false statements with sources and facts.

Meanwhile, you keep on stacking "opinions" without any facts even close to it.

Yes is it my opinion that spending billions on construction of unfinished designs is not not innovative, but it it merely your opinion that this represents innovation...

Unless there was some other "fact" in there?

These are extremely aggressive comments without much to back them up! I am open to hearing more if you do have some facts though.

In your first comment, you've stated that my statement that nuclear has been replaced by renewables is "false". I gave you sources which supported my statement and showed that you are wrong in accusing me of falsehood.

You also claimed Germany had produced some fuckup. I showed you with sources that there is no fuckup.

You've dropped those two things for your personal and unfunded claim that "with better technology", nuclear will come out of something you said in a sentence before doesn't happen. Adding to that, "anti-nuke" failed.

I've explained to you that they actually didn't fail but won and asked for sources on those technology developments you see on the horizon, and therefore you used as an argument.

You still did not come up with any substance or source, but still claiming that there was no focus on innovation. I told you that there have been billions put into that and what came out of it wasn't showing what you claimed it should show (innovation which is cheaper/better).

For which your answer was that this innovation wasn't actual innovation because it was crap.

Leaving us and especially you with nothing to show in this discussion because you've played yourself.

So now, your last straw is an attack on me and the fact that I've shown that your argument is not valid and labeling it as "extremely aggressive".

Seriously? Is this what you learn these days about the way discussions are supposed to work?

I don't know who you think you are replying to, but I said none of those things. Such sloppiness combined with such aggressiveness does not make for good discussion.