• Quatity_Control
    -28 months ago

    Again, no one but you mentioning Chernobyl.

    You’re ignoring solar and hydro. No one said everything has to be wind.

    Nuclear costs in the US are at that price because the industry is mature and subsidised by the government significantly. As in France, as reactors age, things get a lot costlier. Maintaining the surplus industries for storage, maintenance, supplies and infrastructure for nuclear are only getting more expensive. And you still haven’t solved the waste problem. Renewables have some obstacles, but none that can’t be resolved with money. And the end result is cleaner and cheaper.

    • @SwedishFool@lemmy.world
      8 months ago

      You mentioned chernobyl in the very comment I replied to, you being the first person in this entire comment section to do so.

      You’re also oversimplifying the problems and arguing in bad faith by simply ignoring the viability and reality. You can’t just throw money at a problem and it’ll magically resolve itself. Instead of arguing against one of our safest energy sources you should turn your eyes towards fossile power plants which is genuinely killing our planet as we speak. To end that madness in any sort of reasonable time frame you need a combination of all options.

      I also want to add that the production costs for nuclear power I mentioned above, doesn’t count in subsidizes, it’s based on the actual average costs among these 92 reactors without withdrawing government spendings.

      My source is Statista, “the production costs equal the sum of operations and capital costs and fuel costs”.

      You still are just spouting fearmongering that’s going to kill our planet before any “worst case scenarios” you can dream up about nuclear power has any chance to.

      • Quatity_Control
        -18 months ago

        At this point you’re either trolling or arguing with yourself and for some reason replying to me.

        I’m not “fearmongering” when I point out the indisputable fact that renewables don’t produce nuclear waste. You’re also not including the supporting industries that nuclear requires in your costs. And more importantly, you’re only looking at the US. Even then, your figures are arguable.

        Wikipedia “In 2019 the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies”

        Wikipedia “The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of new onshore wind projects added in 2021 fell by 15%, year‑on‑year, to USD 0.033/kWh, while that of new utility-scale solar PV fell by 13% year-on-year to USD 0.048/kWh and that of offshore wind declined 13% to USD 0.075/kWh.”

        Nuclear may make current economic sense when you ignore the storage issues and the cost of new reactors and the unavoidable increase in uranium importation. Long term it doesn’t. Renewables don’t have that issue and are already cheaper.

        Again, renewables globally are cheaper and safer. Byeeeeeee