• wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    $60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure… the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.

    (I’m using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)

    • dgmib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      We can’t manufacture and install enough solar farms and storage to get us off of fossil fuel within 20 years and more importantly available investment capital isn’t the limiting factor.

      Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.

      We can do both, and it gets us off fossil fuels sooner.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think there’s a contingent of people who think nuclear is really, really cool. And it is cool. Splitting atoms to make power is undeniably awesome. That doesn’t make it sensible, though, and they don’t separate those two thoughts in their mind. Their solution is to double down on talking points designed for use against Greenpeace in the 90s rather than absorbing new information that changes the landscape.

      And then there’s a second group that isn’t even trying to argue in good faith. They “support” nuclear knowing it won’t go anywhere because it keeps fossil fuels in place.