• vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’re actually not that expensive, overall. The problem is inefficient bureaucracy around it. As a fun fact you can cut the cost in half by repurposing old coal, oil, and natural gas power plants.

    • Pelicanen@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      They’re insanely expensive up front, it’s just that they’re relatively cheap to run and last a long time so the costs have a low average over time.

    • susieq0044@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      No, we need that money to build out wind and solar now (there’s a climate collapse happening today), we can’t wait 20+ years for a nuclear reactor to go online.

      • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Fun fact, you still need base load reactors, and fun fact, it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant, to be specific, 68 months. From bare ground to fully online and synced with a grid.

        But beyond that, solar is nice and can be useful, wind has some uses in some locations, but you have to be okay with being dependent on China since practically zero other countries make solar panels. There are a few, but 80% of all solar panels sold globally are made in China, and if we include local manufacturing, over 99% of all solar panels made are made in China.

        I mean I’m okay with that, but EU people specifically get super weirded out by that. Most developed countries have all things necessary for a nuclear power grid and can ensure they can always repair, fuel, and maintain their power plants.