This enviroment saving the

[wobs]

No. It was the promise when Nuclear (fusion) was first proposed.

Erm, that's what I said.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ah, sorry, I put the wrong one in brackets.

Point still stands as that is what we were told when they started building nuclear.

 

[wobs]

A discussion here on the quote:
https://www.thenewsminute.com/technologies/511

But even if he was referring to fission, it does not mean we shouldn't install more fission plants now, just because something predicted decades ago didn't come true.

As an aside, I should point out that we cannot have a situation where energy would be too cheap to meter, owing to basic economics.

 

[JohnD]

owing to basic economics.

What is the basic economic rule that says you must charge by usage even when fixed costs exceed variable costs?

Vehicle Tax is charged per vehicle, not per mile.

 

[wobs]

What is the basic economic rule that says you must charge by usage even when fixed costs exceed variable costs?

Vehicle Tax is charged per vehicle, not per mile.

I refer you to a conversation between an economist and a physicist:

......Physicist: But let’s leave the Matrix, and cut to the chase. Let’s imagine a world of steady population and steady energy use. I think we’ve both agreed on these physically-imposed parameters. If the flow of energy is fixed, but we posit continued economic growth, then GDP continues to grow while energy remains at a fixed scale. This means that energy—a physically-constrained resource, mind—must become arbitrarily cheap as GDP continues to grow and leave energy in the dust.

Economist: Yes, I think energy plays a diminishing role in the economy and becomes too cheap to worry about.

Physicist: Wow. Do you really believe that? A physically limited resource (read scarcity) that is fundamental to every economic activity becomes arbitrarily cheap? [turns attention to food on the plate, somewhat stunned]

Economist: [after pause to consider] Yes, I do believe that.

Physicist: Okay, so let’s be clear that we’re talking about the same thing. Energy today is roughly 10% of GDP. Let’s say we cap the physical amount available each year at some level, but allow GDP to keep growing. We need to ignore inflation as a nuisance in this case: if my 10 units of energy this year costs $10,000 out of my $100,000 income; then next year that same amount of energy costs $11,000 and I make $110,000—I want to ignore such an effect as “meaningless” inflation: the GDP “growth” in this sense is not real growth, but just a re-scaling of the value of money.

Economist: Agreed.

Physicist: Then in order to have real GDP growth on top of flat energy, the fractional cost of energy goes down relative to the GDP as a whole.

Economist: Correct.

Physicist: How far do you imagine this can go? Will energy get to 1% of GDP? 0.1%? Is there a limit?

Economist: There does not need to be. Energy may become of secondary importance in the economy of the future—like in the virtual world I illustrated.

Physicist: But if energy became arbitrarily cheap, someone could buy all of it, and suddenly the activities that comprise the economy would grind to a halt. Food would stop arriving at the plate without energy for purchase, so people would pay attention to this. Someone would be willing to pay more for it. Everyone would. There will be a floor to how low energy prices can go as a fraction of GDP.

Economist: That floor may be very low: much lower than the 5–10% we pay today......

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
So energy cost will always be a non-zero cost as a fraction of GDP.

If it was cheaper, someone would come along and buy more, leaving others without. This would raise the price.