3 ms·

That person you are arguing with is not arguing with you in good faith. They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above

That person you are arguing with is not arguing with you in good faith. They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above" approach. The subsidies that both nuclear and fossil fuel industries have received since the 50's is mind boggling, and they could not come up with a better idea if things go bad, I guess just bury the waste somewhere and and go live elsewhere.

arcticbull 1y ago
> They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above" approach. I support renewables. I think it's important we understand the whole picture, and think we should construct them even if they're expensive and imperfect. However people seem to think that they're basically free and completely harmless to the environment while neither is true. > The subsidies that both nuclear and fossil fuel industries have received since the 50's is mind boggling. Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. The renewables industry has historically and also continues to receives significant subsidies. So does the fossil fuel industry. > I guess just bury the waste somewhere and and go live elsewhere. Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem. Yes, you can put the spicy rocks back where they came from.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  > Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. That is why we are seeing massive 40 year PPA agreements, the state taking the entire financial- and project risk and similar steps to force the paltry few proposed nuclear projects over the final investment decision line? Modern nuclear power is absolutely insanely subsidized.
- derriz 1y ago
  > Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. Not true. Basically every nuclear plant ever built has been, if not directly financed by government, backed a guarantee to purchase every MWh produced at a fixed (or index linked to inflation) price. Hinkley Point C - under construction in the UK - are guaranteed £92.50 per MWh produced (in 2012 prices index linked to inflation - so already this has risen to £133.81/MWh and the project is still years from operation). This guarantee lasts 35 years once the plant becomes operational. For comparison, current wholesale prices in the UK are roughly half this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_powe...
- mulmen 1y ago
  [flagged]
- jdjoker 1y ago
  As a species collective we understand the big picture. > Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem. Sure to you because you apparently never had that job. It's trivial to see you are just reciting from memory and not experience. Waste is a problem in that it is generated and must be handled, transported, stored safely. Perhaps you mean it's not a long term problem once stored? Good job making it clear you don't understand the problem. Thankfully others do. Please continue to rant online out of the way such that you stay out of the way.

arcticbull 1y ago

> They are in the "base load" camp, despite knowing full well we need an "all of the above" approach. I support renewables. I think it's important we understand the whole picture, and think we should construct them even if they're expensive and imperfect. However people seem to think that they're basically free and completely harmless to the environment while neither is true. > The subsidies that both nuclear and fossil fuel industries have received since the 50's is mind boggling. Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. The renewables industry has historically and also continues to receives significant subsidies. So does the fossil fuel industry. > I guess just bury the waste somewhere and and go live elsewhere. Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem. Yes, you can put the spicy rocks back where they came from.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
> Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. That is why we are seeing massive 40 year PPA agreements, the state taking the entire financial- and project risk and similar steps to force the paltry few proposed nuclear projects over the final investment decision line? Modern nuclear power is absolutely insanely subsidized.
derriz 1y ago
> Nowhere in the world is nuclear subsidized per unit of production. Not true. Basically every nuclear plant ever built has been, if not directly financed by government, backed a guarantee to purchase every MWh produced at a fixed (or index linked to inflation) price. Hinkley Point C - under construction in the UK - are guaranteed £92.50 per MWh produced (in 2012 prices index linked to inflation - so already this has risen to £133.81/MWh and the project is still years from operation). This guarantee lasts 35 years once the plant becomes operational. For comparison, current wholesale prices in the UK are roughly half this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_powe...
mulmen 1y ago
[flagged]
jdjoker 1y ago
As a species collective we understand the big picture. > Nuclear waste is not now and has never been a real problem. Sure to you because you apparently never had that job. It's trivial to see you are just reciting from memory and not experience. Waste is a problem in that it is generated and must be handled, transported, stored safely. Perhaps you mean it's not a long term problem once stored? Good job making it clear you don't understand the problem. Thankfully others do. Please continue to rant online out of the way such that you stay out of the way.