Nuclear power outcompeted solar because of military and profit advantages

Evidence

In postwar analyses of potential replacements for finite supplies of fossil fuels, solar and atomic energy almost always were listed first. For a time, the two technologies seemed to be compatible. In a 1953 book titled Energy in the Future, for example, analyst Palmer Putnam urged stepped-up research on both solar and atomic technology: The first was the most promising source of renewable “income” energy, while the second was the most abundant form of depletable energy “capital.” But, in fact, the choice turned out to be either/or, and solar research lost out. Though a few scientists argued in the 1950s that solar technology should have priority – atomic energy was more complex, involved health hazards, and posed potentially insoluble problems of hazardous waste disposal – the advocates of nuclear energy enjoyed important advantages. Unlike solar power, nuclear technology had military applications, so development could be justified in terms of national security. Atomic energy also seemed to provide more opportunities for profit. The only saleable product of solar heating technology was the equipment, whereas atomic energy yielded kilowatts, too. For the major nuclear contractors, all giants of the electrical industry, the development of power reactors also supported a number of well-established lines of business. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 227

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Electric utilities marketed heat by betting on future atomic cheapness. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 272; A sub-rosa cost-benefit analysis decided only nuclear plants warranted maximum storm protection — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 230; Power advantages compound without external restraint

Broader Connections

• Power advantages compound without external restraint #contradicts (0.70)