3 ms·

> billions of dollars' worth of safety measures. This is of the order of fractions of pennies when we compare to fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels to the tun

> billions of dollars' worth of safety measures. This is of the order of fractions of pennies when we compare to fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels to the tune of $7 trillion/year[1] and cause 10 million deaths/year. Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p... > large crew of skilled people If we stop subsidizing fossil fuels, then the energy markets will be fair, nuclear will win (or at least a major play along with solar and wind) and there will be a ton of skilled workforce. We didn't have a skilled javascript workforce 2 decades ago, now we have millions. [1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022 https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

Kon5ole 3y ago
>If we stop subsidizing fossil fuels, then the energy markets will be fair, nuclear will win I can't see nuclear winning, it is at least the second most subsidized energy source we have and already more expensive than solar+storage, which is only getting cheaper while the true costs of nuclear are revealed to be larger than any estimates have indicated. France recently had to pay a 50 bn downpayment for the fictional cost of nuclear they have operated with for decades, and that's just the beginning. In the US, the government covers a lot of the cost, for example by having the army maintain security for spent fuel. The latest nuclear reactor in europe, Finlands OL3, had to reduce production earlier this year because the market price of electricity was too low. And that's already now, from a plant that is already in place. How can any project making new nuclear plants ever hope to be profitable if existing plants are already (granted, intermittently) losing money?

Kon5ole 3y ago

>If we stop subsidizing fossil fuels, then the energy markets will be fair, nuclear will win I can't see nuclear winning, it is at least the second most subsidized energy source we have and already more expensive than solar+storage, which is only getting cheaper while the true costs of nuclear are revealed to be larger than any estimates have indicated. France recently had to pay a 50 bn downpayment for the fictional cost of nuclear they have operated with for decades, and that's just the beginning. In the US, the government covers a lot of the cost, for example by having the army maintain security for spent fuel. The latest nuclear reactor in europe, Finlands OL3, had to reduce production earlier this year because the market price of electricity was too low. And that's already now, from a plant that is already in place. How can any project making new nuclear plants ever hope to be profitable if existing plants are already (granted, intermittently) losing money?