3 ms·

I live in Germany and the cost of storing existing nuclear waste will be over 100 billion [1]. It will be paid by me, my children and their children and God kno

I live in Germany and the cost of storing existing nuclear waste will be over 100 billion [1]. It will be paid by me, my children and their children and God knows how many generations because the companies would've just declared bankruptcy if they had to pay for the whole thing themselves. And it doesn't even work with all of these massive explicit or implicit subsidies! More harm has been done to the environment by wasting money on this grand delusion for decades than anything other than directly emitting co2 in the atmosphere. It was figured out already in the eighties that the math doesn't work, which was the first time we saw concepts like small modular being designed on purpose [2]. But those didn't work either, so it was back to the beginning, which predictably failed like it did the first time. Now we are back at maybe small modular can help us, and any reasonable person can make a good guess if it will work. People building these things are laughing all the way to the bank. [1] https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 https://learngerman.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear... [2] https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgotten-history-small-nuclear-reactors https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/872-873/forgot...

ravenstine 4y ago
Germany is one of the world's largest economies. Your GDP is 4.2 trillion USD. How do you picture the cost of 100 billion being a problem?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- locallost 4y ago
  100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. It's especially a problem because even if you ignore it, nuclear is not competitive. So basically you have to overpay other solutions and then later you need to spend a huge chunk of money to get out of the investment. It's a bad deal in every way. The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. This hasn't panned out, we have decades of evidence. The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables -- you can debate it, but renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time. It's not a guarantee, but I won't bet on the losing horse.
  - ravenstine 4y ago
    > 100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. I agree on principle, except it doesn't matter because that logic is respected at all by modern international monetary policy. > The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. I'm not sure who was suggesting that, but it was always wrong. > The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables According to? > renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time No and no. Renewables have their place but they have not proven to be able to support the grid on their own the way that deposit forms of energy do. This is entirely self evident. No one would be advocating for nuclear if solar and wind were a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Solar technology has been around for over half a century and its efficiency pales in contrast to internal combustion. Even the Stirling engine is more efficient (but was abandoned because its use in solar poses a danger to birds). They have to be able to make a profit, and they can't do that without having society as a group pay for them through policy.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
Don't worry, you and your kids are paying for green subsidies as well. The math on nuclear power is not a settled matter: some studies say it's convenient, some studies say it's not. It's hard to say who's right on the matter, but we also spent decades not improving nuclear reactor technology. Overall I'd say I'm more confident in nuclear energy being the best for generating energy at scale, while renewables are great for reducing or eliminating the dependency on a national grid.
- locallost 4y ago
  I am not paying for renewables subsidies, nor did I ever. There was a guaranteed price per kWh minimum, that was funded by the consumer, but even this part of the bill was reduced to 0 this year. It's a settled matter. We know how much it costs to produce electricity from different sources based on upfront and operational costs, and nuclear is not competitive.
thatfrenchguy 4y ago
100 billion sure, but how much is that over each kWh produced? Not a lot of money. Every nuclear power plant Germany closes is more CO2 emitted when inevitably a gas or coal plant will have to pick up the slack.

ravenstine 4y ago

Germany is one of the world's largest economies. Your GDP is 4.2 trillion USD. How do you picture the cost of 100 billion being a problem?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
locallost 4y ago
100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. It's especially a problem because even if you ignore it, nuclear is not competitive. So basically you have to overpay other solutions and then later you need to spend a huge chunk of money to get out of the investment. It's a bad deal in every way. The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. This hasn't panned out, we have decades of evidence. The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables -- you can debate it, but renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time. It's not a guarantee, but I won't bet on the losing horse.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  > 100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. I agree on principle, except it doesn't matter because that logic is respected at all by modern international monetary policy. > The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. I'm not sure who was suggesting that, but it was always wrong. > The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables According to? > renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time No and no. Renewables have their place but they have not proven to be able to support the grid on their own the way that deposit forms of energy do. This is entirely self evident. No one would be advocating for nuclear if solar and wind were a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Solar technology has been around for over half a century and its efficiency pales in contrast to internal combustion. Even the Stirling engine is more efficient (but was abandoned because its use in solar poses a danger to birds). They have to be able to make a profit, and they can't do that without having society as a group pay for them through policy.

jokethrowaway 4y ago

Don't worry, you and your kids are paying for green subsidies as well. The math on nuclear power is not a settled matter: some studies say it's convenient, some studies say it's not. It's hard to say who's right on the matter, but we also spent decades not improving nuclear reactor technology. Overall I'd say I'm more confident in nuclear energy being the best for generating energy at scale, while renewables are great for reducing or eliminating the dependency on a national grid.

locallost 4y ago
I am not paying for renewables subsidies, nor did I ever. There was a guaranteed price per kWh minimum, that was funded by the consumer, but even this part of the bill was reduced to 0 this year. It's a settled matter. We know how much it costs to produce electricity from different sources based on upfront and operational costs, and nuclear is not competitive.

thatfrenchguy 4y ago

100 billion sure, but how much is that over each kWh produced? Not a lot of money. Every nuclear power plant Germany closes is more CO2 emitted when inevitably a gas or coal plant will have to pick up the slack.