3 ms·
I don't see any credible source for the "300 billion" claim. The official statistics list 168 billion since 2000 for all renewables combined: https://de.statist
by fsh 7y ago
I don't see any credible source for the "300 billion" claim. The official statistics list 168 billion since 2000 for all renewables combined: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36306/umfrage/entwicklung-der-verguetung-nach-dem-eeg-seit-2000/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36306/umfrage...
On the other hand, nuclear power has been subsidized with about 200 billion as well without ever producing more than one third of the electricity output: https://foes.de/pdf/2010_FOES_Foerderungen_Atomenergie_1950-2010.pdf https://foes.de/pdf/2010_FOES_Foerderungen_Atomenergie_1950-...
The other elephant in the room is that nuclear energy relies on having cheap sources of Uranium available. This works fine for the almost negligible amount of nuclear energy being generated today. Scaling this up to a significant fraction of the world energy consumption would require usage of breeder reactors which nobody has been able to get to work at the required industrial scales.
- wazoox 7y agoNuclear energy is capital-intensive, but not resource intensive. The cost of the plant dwarves the cost of uranium to run it. In this way, it's similar to wind. France had 2 working breeders reactors, Phénix and SuperPhénix, and they worked at industrial scale. They were cut off for purely political reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix