• @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    251 year ago

    K, but this isn’t about profits. This is about not destroying the environment, which nuclear can help with (you know if nobody bombs the plant)

    • Chetzemoka
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      But it’s also about cost. Nuclear is far more expensive upfront, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to decommission. Cheap, agile renewables will be an easier option for the vast majority of the planet

      • @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        We would be really stupid to worry about money when trying to save the planet. But, what did I know, I’m just some guy on the internet

        • @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Financiers tend to worry about money, yes.

          First option: a wind/solar plant with costs that aren’t going to increase substantially, power being sold within a couple of years therefore repayments will begin quickly.

          Second option: a nuclear proposal - massive costs upfront, that will inevitably skyrocket while the completion date slips and slips, and power being sold 10-15 year in the future so repayments are a long way off.

          It’s not a difficult choice.

          If your argument is that we should nationalize the energy sector so government can get involved more directly to mitigate financing issues, sure. We both know that’s not going to happen.

          • BombOmOm
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            How does one provide power when the renewables don’t provide enough power (nights, etc)? Our current solution is natural gas. Nuclear is a huge step up as a carbon-free provider.

            • @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              Storage, there are many options. Pumped hydro is great for places with elevation change, molten salt is great for desert climates. Batteries, green hydrogen, compressed gas, etc.

              We’ve been storing energy for thousands of years. It’s not difficult in the way nuclear fusion, SMRs, or thorium are difficult.

              We’re also moving towards EVs. I’d like to see investment in using a fleet of connected EVs as a giant battery. Your energy company can pay you for making 10-15% of your EV battery available for grid storage and you can opt out if you need that extra range for a trip.

          • Azrael
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @N1cknamed @NocturnalMorning be carful about time scale when talking about rentrability. In short term a few reneable is certainly cheaper, but nuclear reactor will outlive the ENR. For governement, long term rentability may be more important than short term one. Also, governement consider other parameters (jobs, resillience, public opinion, ghg emmissions? …)

        • Chetzemoka
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          We *rich countries would be really stupid to worry about money when trying to save the planet.

          There’s a lot of world outside the US, Europe, and China.

    • DarkThoughts
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      Everything is about profits. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be in this mess.