2 ms·
Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past. Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it
by modo_mario 1y ago
Yet it used to be very cheap. In some places it still is cheap whilst being much safer than in the past.
Meanwhile the requirements for it and the processes it has to abide by are kafkaesque.
Not in a double down on security way.
Just plain nonsensical.
I have heard so many stories from outside and people workin in it.
Things like considering refabricating the same lightbulb from some now non existant company from the 80's because that one got listed and is certified and the process to go trough to allow a new one is too cumbersome and the light went out in the toilets of some irrelevant sidebuilding.
So you get a lightbulb that costs an insane amount.
Or here in belgium the greens pushed some new tests to detect microfisures deep in a ridiculously thick vat that isn't security critical that would have been there since fabrication and which nobody else in the world checks for and they shut down the place for it when found.
Anything to validate their own theory that nuclear is too expensive whilst planning for new gas plants.
Meanwhile the plant in france that was shut down is because they didn't want to have an ecological impact on a nearby nature reserve. Something that indeed wasn't accounted for decades ago.
At the same time one manages to have such plants running in Saudi Arabia?
Additionally Germany has spend untold amounts more on it's renewables.
It still hasn't linked it's own damn grids, put strain on infrastructure and prices abroad...
and those same investments won't go for nearly as long. A good part of that green wave investment already needs replacing.
All whilst necessitating fossil fuel production because that capacity figure that people hold up means jack shit when it's not what they actually produce in summer and those panels in berlin produce not even a fraction of that capacity in winter.
- onli 1y agoIt was never cheap. Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users, but not cheap in general. You can read a writeup of the parliamentary scientific service about that at https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d883a81adcf2697313c7d/WD-5-090-21-pdf-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/877586/4e4dce913c3d88... A striking example is the German state having to pay for storing the nuclear waste (temporary and final, see https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckbau_Rueckstellungen_Kernkraftwerke/rueckbau_rueckstellungen_kernkraftwerke_node.html https://www.bafa.de/DE/Wirtschaft/Handwerk_Industrie/Rueckba..., though Germany has no final storage). Also when tearing down the old plants it can happen that the state is paying for that, as in https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-neue-milliardenlast-kosten-fuer-akw-abriss-landen-wohl-beim-bund/100066216.html https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/atomkraft-n.... Those costs were not part of the calculated energy costs, and in the past there were further subventions for the companies that lowered the price. Those are also listed at my first link.
- modo_mario 1y ago>Nuclear energy got a lot of subventions which limited the prices as seen by end users You think that isn't happening even more now? And yes it was a lot cheaper than it is now. One reason being that a lot more were built around that time in europe and our reactors actually went up in about 5 years.