Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixr5srm wrote

Reply to comment by 233C in Germany approves welfare reform, extends nuclear power | Germany's upper house of parliament approved measures aimed at helping people hit hard by high energy prices and the high cost of living. The country's nuclear power extension will also take effect immediately. by misana123

Can we send the bill for those shitty plants to you then? Cause I do not want to see my taxes wasted on the most inefficient and costly form of energy. And I hope that you live for a few thousand years too so you can take care of the nuclear waste for us.

−29

yayacocojambo t1_ixr83yw wrote

How is that trillion euros spent on energiwende working out for you…?

2

RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixr8xf5 wrote

I wish it was a trillion and the money we invest into renewables sure as hell is a better investment than flushing it down the nuclear toilet.

Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.

Not to mention that the costs of nuclear do not even include the giant costs that are yet to come when all the reactors have to be build back and the waste has to be cared for literally thousands of years.

−15

Utxi4m t1_ixrc2ik wrote

>Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map

Reality seem to disagree with your position. Rather fiercely even.

France decarbonised their electricity supply faster and cheaper than Germany. And with much much better results.

>average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.

That's just a straight up lie. Where did you get that from? (Genuinely curious)

9

Mandelmensch t1_ixshm8d wrote

Just look at the amount of imported energy to france from all of europe and tell me again how good nuclear power is, when you neglect your power stations. Also france is forcing a fixed price for electricity to the power stations, which is below production price. In turn they have to bail out the providers with tax money. In the end its more expensive and the rest of europe carries the cost of providing missing capacity.

−2

Utxi4m t1_ixsiwvs wrote

So, since the eighties France has saved a "few" billion tons of CO2, has consistently lower CO2 emmisions today, has spent less establishing their carbon neutral capacity. But that is nullified due to one poor year where weather and covid delayed maintenance hit poorly?

Germany is restarting coal plants (and burning other nations forests) after investing a trillion in renewables. But the French energy system is the bad one?

>Also france is forcing a fixed price for electricity to the power stations, which is below production price. In turn they have to bail out the providers with tax money

How is that relevant? Do we want clean energy fast and cheap? Then French nuclear outclasses German renewables by a gigantic margin.

> In the end its more expensive and the rest of europe carries the cost of providing missing capacity.

EDf is bringing 30GW capacity online early 2023, as probably the only thing keeping Europe from ending in full blown Mad Max. If Germany hadn't shuttered 30GW of nuclear, we wouldn't have a problem at all...

5

Utxi4m t1_ixsv1tk wrote

And since we are looking at France today. Have you seen the latest OECD growth estimates. Germany -0.3% and France +0,6%, 0.9% GDP difference and all of it attributed exclusively to energy availability.

That's a pretty massive one off cost you can throw on top of the bet on renewables.

−1

Dumpster_Buddy t1_ixs5zzr wrote

Another person who has bought into the propaganda that nuclear energy isn’t the cleanest, safest and cheapest energy source.

Oil and coal industry has lied to you and you ate it up.

3

CorpusCalIosum t1_ixtz2oz wrote

It isn't lol

PV solar is no less safe and it's significantly cheaper at utility scale, I'd say it's probably not as clean due to material but it also doesn't take 10+ years to get an installation operational

2

kraenk12 t1_ixu71wq wrote

Oh god you people are absolutely disgusting.

1

RedditIsShit9922 t1_ixs73dj wrote

lol you just mindlessly repeat the reddit nuclear shilling.

The Inkai Uranium project spans about 486km2 where a hole is drilled every 25-50m and millions of tonnes of sulfuric acid is poured into the ground. Other activity is exluded from an area in a 15km radius or around 1000km2 due to the ground water contamination. It devastates nature on a scale only comparable to coal mining. "bUt iT iS ToTaLly thE cLEaNeST enErgY eVEr!"

The EPR project in France. 15+y in the making, still not operating. The budget has exploded 3 times the original budget. The price per kWh will be between 2-3 times more of new solar PV. Not included of course are the insane costs of building the plants back and taking care of the nuclear waste for thousands of years. Nevermind that there literally is no business case for nuclear energy cause it is so freaking cost inefficient that the only way to make a profit with it is to make taxpayers pay for all the costs and externalities for you! "bUt iT iS tHe cHeApEsT enErgY eVEr!"

Then of course there are the catastrophic, landscape-destroying and ocean/groundwater-poisoning disasters we all know about that supposedly can only happen once every thousand years but already happened multiple times in my lifetime alone. Oh and nuclear waste that will be a safety hazard for THOUSANDS of years. "HERP DERP BUT IT IS ALSO THE SAFEST ENERGY!"

You people are cultists.

−1