3 ms·

There are just way more economic solutions than new nuclear power stations (and the old ones really start to have a lot of issues and have a lot of downtime). L

There are just way more economic solutions than new nuclear power stations (and the old ones really start to have a lot of issues and have a lot of downtime). Look at Wylfa Newydd, Hinkley Point C, Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3 and then you will see that without even starting to include the massive costs of decomissioning and storage there are just way more economic solutions to reduce co2 emissions. When it comes to demolition take a look at Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant [0], which was decommissioned in 1990 and they are not even close to being finished with demolition - after 30 Years, and apparently there are 1000 Workers employed on or at the site. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greifswald_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greifswald_Nuclear_Power_Plant

lucb1e 8y ago
Is there a study or some other resource of someone who looked at all these cases and calculated a cost, then compared them to these "other, more economical solutions to reduce CO2"? And are those "show hn" style prototypes, or is there anything that actually makes a difference that shows up on national statistics (of a country of your choice)? You make it sound as if there is no reason to go for nuclear at all, while that's not what I hear from others. Edit: by the way, I did not downvote you (one cannot downvote direct replies) and don't know why you are. Maybe it's because you never mentioned what those economical options are, so your post does not really add much to the subthread without further information?
- aurelwu 8y ago
  it's not the newest one (but prices for renewables have improved since and Hinkley Point C got more expensive) but here is one study which partially looks at it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/low-carbon-technologies/Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_web_final.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora... I'm from germany so most studies I know are in german so sorry for being a bit sparse on english sources and I guess german is of no use to you, If I find the time I'll try to find some more.

lucb1e 8y ago

Is there a study or some other resource of someone who looked at all these cases and calculated a cost, then compared them to these "other, more economical solutions to reduce CO2"? And are those "show hn" style prototypes, or is there anything that actually makes a difference that shows up on national statistics (of a country of your choice)? You make it sound as if there is no reason to go for nuclear at all, while that's not what I hear from others. Edit: by the way, I did not downvote you (one cannot downvote direct replies) and don't know why you are. Maybe it's because you never mentioned what those economical options are, so your post does not really add much to the subthread without further information?

aurelwu 8y ago
it's not the newest one (but prices for renewables have improved since and Hinkley Point C got more expensive) but here is one study which partially looks at it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/low-carbon-technologies/Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_web_final.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora... I'm from germany so most studies I know are in german so sorry for being a bit sparse on english sources and I guess german is of no use to you, If I find the time I'll try to find some more.