• Q ⠀@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?

    Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.

    • zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn’t help anybody. “batteries work”, but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.

      • Q ⠀@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        New nuclear installations will take 10 years and more. They will cost more then anyone is willing to pay. The math is clear, batteries and renewables like geo heat pumps, solar and wind are dead cheap in comparison.

        Energy conservation is still the main goal.

        Nuclear energy is the false promises that let us believe we can continue as we were.