• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    The first reactor is hard to build and suffer delays and overcoats. The next ones are easier and cheaper. Like absolutely any other industrial project. Like renewable did over the last 20 years.

    Renewables did it with significantly lower risk and at significantly lower cost than nuclear.

    Renewables cost more to build than a traditional coal power plant, but still far less than nuclear. Maintenance costs are comparible for renewables but more consistent, while nuclear can be much higher in a worst case scenario. Demolition costs are neglible for renewables (the equipment is sold on), while nuclear demolition almost always ends up requiring further state financing, billed to the taxpayer.

    Like you say, development of nuclear tech has been stunted. Renewables are mature and cheap and mass produceable. Nuclear is needed long term, but renewables are ready now.

    The goal isn’t to build the perfect utopian utlity network right away. The goal should be to switch off fossil fuels as quickly and as much as possible.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Except this is wrong. Wikipedia cost of electricity by source shows 81-82$/MWh for nuclear, 67-146$/MWh for offshore wind. Solar is 31-146.

      A notable fact is also that renewable supporters are very often very against nuclear energy, and very much on favour of turning it off at all cost. I know no nuclear energy supporter who is against renewable energy.

      If the goal is to remove fossil fuels from energy, some people should really stop fighting nuclear energy at all cost like they did for 40 years.