3 ms·

> France's power is cheap by European standard [0]. Because France heavily subsidized its nuclear infrastructure. They also have a big problem right now becaus

> France's power is cheap by European standard [0]. Because France heavily subsidized its nuclear infrastructure. They also have a big problem right now because most plants are old and have to be decomissioned, and building new plants is not economical.[0] Energy from nuclear power plants is pretty expensive sans subsidies, not just in France. Just as an example of the live cycle costs: An old plant in my country is in the process of deconstruction - for over 25 years now. The company created as a legal umbrella for the job employs over 500 people since its creation. No end in sight. [0] https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f326-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f326-11e8-9623-d7f9881e7...

literallycancer 7y ago
Renewable sources are too expensive without subsidies too. So, how do we make people use solar? I know, let's make everything else more expensive: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/b5/Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers%2C_first_half_2018_%28EUR_per_kWh%29.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/...
- bildung 7y ago
  Renewables are way cheaper without subsidies. Just compare how nuclear got financed in the 1950s compared to what flows into renewables in recent decades, it's an order of magnitude smaller. And those subsidies don't include nuclear plant decomissioning, the costs of which dwarf everything else. The plant in my example cost over a billion already, and isn't even finished. A single plant. Also those per kilowatt numbers in the chart don't mean much without comparing total consumption per household. I pay way more than the most expensive example in the charts, at 30 cents per kilowatt, yet our monthly total is only 80 Euros for a 5 person household.
mimixco 7y ago
Ah, yes, decommissioning, that dirty little word no one in the nuclear industry likes to talk about. Decommissioning can take decades and cost billions, usually passed on the ratepayers. These costs are never mentioned when the industry discusses its economics. I'm also getting kind of tired of the "solar pollutes, too" argument. Yes, solar pollutes. So does making PC processors. But neither of those activities create radioactive materials which can poison people from a distance and persist in our environment for thousands of years. There is simply no comparison between poisonous heavy metals and radioactive nucleotides.
- cuspycode 7y ago
  There is one aspect in which non-radioactive heavy metals are worse: since they are stable elements they must be stored away and guarded forever, not just for a limited number of years.
  - mimixco 7y ago
    Heavy metals can't hurt you unless you ingest them. Proximity or handling doesn't hurt people. Radioactive materials, however, vomit particles everywhere in an untraceable way. Radioactivity cannot be removed from contaminated materials without transferring the radioactivity to something else. This is the key difference. Heavy metals can also be filtered from water and segregated from other substances, while radioactivity cannot.

literallycancer 7y ago

Renewable sources are too expensive without subsidies too. So, how do we make people use solar? I know, let's make everything else more expensive: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/b5/Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers%2C_first_half_2018_%28EUR_per_kWh%29.png https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/...

bildung 7y ago
Renewables are way cheaper without subsidies. Just compare how nuclear got financed in the 1950s compared to what flows into renewables in recent decades, it's an order of magnitude smaller. And those subsidies don't include nuclear plant decomissioning, the costs of which dwarf everything else. The plant in my example cost over a billion already, and isn't even finished. A single plant. Also those per kilowatt numbers in the chart don't mean much without comparing total consumption per household. I pay way more than the most expensive example in the charts, at 30 cents per kilowatt, yet our monthly total is only 80 Euros for a 5 person household.

mimixco 7y ago

Ah, yes, decommissioning, that dirty little word no one in the nuclear industry likes to talk about. Decommissioning can take decades and cost billions, usually passed on the ratepayers. These costs are never mentioned when the industry discusses its economics. I'm also getting kind of tired of the "solar pollutes, too" argument. Yes, solar pollutes. So does making PC processors. But neither of those activities create radioactive materials which can poison people from a distance and persist in our environment for thousands of years. There is simply no comparison between poisonous heavy metals and radioactive nucleotides.

cuspycode 7y ago
There is one aspect in which non-radioactive heavy metals are worse: since they are stable elements they must be stored away and guarded forever, not just for a limited number of years.
- mimixco 7y ago
  Heavy metals can't hurt you unless you ingest them. Proximity or handling doesn't hurt people. Radioactive materials, however, vomit particles everywhere in an untraceable way. Radioactivity cannot be removed from contaminated materials without transferring the radioactivity to something else. This is the key difference. Heavy metals can also be filtered from water and segregated from other substances, while radioactivity cannot.