Meanwhile in Germany:

  • @Gabu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -131 year ago

    That’s not how that works, mate. Nuclear is the highest priority of energy generation because it’s ultra cheap to produce and completely stable (once you have the reactors built, that is). If Germany still had those power plants, they could’ve dumped fossil and kept renewables, all while investing in energy storage.

    • @barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      Nuclear is the highest priority of energy generation because it’s ultra cheap to produce and completely stable

      Not how the laws work in Germany: Renewables always have priority, they get to sell their production first, everyone else has to make do with the rest of the demand.

      • @Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        Renewables always have priority, they get to sell their production first

        Well, duh - intermittent generation means it makes the most sense to use while you can and wait on scalable power for when your load demands more power than is available. What I meant by that is that, of all scalable sources, you always go for Nuclear first.

    • Domkat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Except that if you calculate the complete cost including building the plants it’s stupendously expensive compared to renewables even including energy storage.

      • @Gabu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -31 year ago

        Which is irrelevant, unless you’re representing a profit-seeking corporation (if that were the case, fuck off, then).

        • @rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          I do like nuclear, but of course the costs matter regardless of profit seeking. If you have two options that are same benefit but one costs more, to go with that one is just wasteful.

          • @Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            They’re not the same benefit. The cost of extracting the materials for building renewable infrastructure is also immense, and that infrastructure must be completely swapped out every couple decades.

        • Domkat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Why is that irrelevant? These plants don’t run forever and are very expensive. You wouldn’t buy a car either that costs 15 million Euro, but in return just uses 1liter of diesel per 100km.

          • @Gabu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago

            These plants don’t run forever

            Compared to solar and wind, they may as well last forever. We’re talking the difference between a century or more (nuclear) to complete exhaustion in just a couple decades (solar).

            You wouldn’t buy a car either that costs[…]

            I wouldn’t buy a car, period.

            • Domkat
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              That is factually incorrect. The oldest reactors still in service are around 60years old and have to be maintained and repaired at high costs as safety relevant parts are heavily deteriorated.

              With rising safety measures new plants get more expensive from year to year all the while renewables get cheaper and cheaper in production.

        • Nobsi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Nuclear costs double per kilowatt than solar tho??
          And Nuclear Plants are always built by for profit companies?