3 ms·
I‘m very interested in the financials of this decision. Nuclear plants are designed for base loads but are way more expensive than solar and wind energy. The lo
by rmoriz 5mo ago
I‘m very interested in the financials of this decision. Nuclear plants are designed for base loads but are way more expensive than solar and wind energy. The losses will increase the costs of energy.
- timmg 5mo agoThat cost has a lot to do with amortizing the construction costs of the plant. I expect that just running a plant is a lot cheaper than that. This is about *not* decommissioning working plants.
- declan_roberts 5mo agoBaseline energy is incredibly important, and often not factored into the "cost" comparisons. Especially true now with the explosive growth of data center and AI workloads.
- lucb1e 5mo ago[dead]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- mpweiher 5mo agoActually, nuclear is not way more expensive. And already-built nuclear is pretty much the cheapest power you can get.
- bobim 5mo agoIt's cheap because we are offsetting the cost if its ultimate pollution onto future generations. We do this for everything else, and nuclear is our best chance for a liveable planet - if we don't want to make the slightest effort to give up on our comfort. But we have the belief that humanity will be able to manage nuclear waste for the next 100k years while we don't know how the pyramids were built... and it was only 3k years ago.
- Moldoteck 5mo agonobody is offsetting anything, it's accounted, please dont spread this tired russian propaganda nonsense https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte... Or search what's onkalo. Or what we do with arsenic/cadmium/lead waste