this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
984 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

34977 readers
73 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Solar now being the cheapest energy source made its rounds on Lemmy some weeks ago, if I remember correctly. I just found this graphic and felt it was worth sharing independently.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Actually I do. I was a nuclear booster in the 1990’s because it means cheap limitless pollution free power.

Except that they don’t actually deliver on that promise. You can have safe nuclear or cheap nuclear, but if it’s safe it’s not cheap, and the public rightfully won’t accept something that can require evacuating hundreds of square miles for decades.

So wise one, where are those cheap safe nuclear power plants we keep hearing about since 1950?

[–] moomoomoo309@programming.dev 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In France. They standardized the designs so each one isn't a one-off and they trained more people to work in the field.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.

France is trying to extend their service lifetime beyond what they were designed for because they can’t face the bill to replace them with newer reactors.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

and are subsidized by enrichment ~~for weapons purposes~~ in order to reprocess the waste into new fuel

FTFY. That's a good thing and we should be doing it here in the US, too.

[–] moomoomoo309@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Uhh, I was referring to the new ones France has been building, not the old ones...

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the user above me actually gave the the answer so kudos to them but to further answer your question, there are no actually cheap reactors because the fight to actually build one is so insanely expensive. Where I live they'd been trying to build a reactor for over a decade. Constant lawsuits and legal battles after already obtaining permits and everything. Its ballooned the cost by tenfold. Why? Because of constant NGO pressure from the likes of greenpeace. So congrats, you win. They aren't cheap cause of the hell we've made for ourselves.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re blaming everyone else for nuclear’s failures.

Why are even French nuclear plants badly over budget and late? Answer: Nuclear is expensive as fuck.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you unable to read or are you just ignoring what I'm saying on purpose. I told you why they're badly over budget and late. This clearly is a dead conversation as you lack either a) reading comprehension or b) the ability to discuss in good faith.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Frankly, bad-faith arguments (and lawsuits) are basically the entire problem with nuclear.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Ain't that the truth