this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
68 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6237 readers
303 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
God, I hope not.
Nuclear is not bad, it’s just not cost effective (at least in the US, no idea what infrastructure is like elsewhere tbh)
Being ineffective kind of makes it bad though.
/edit
I mean, seriously... "Nuclear isn't bad if you just disregard the enormous cost, which usually don't even include the socialised cost of accidents that could spoil half a country or the handling of lethal waste that'll kill you for longer than our species existed" is such a wild take... Yeah, if it's too expensive to be used efficiently then it's probably a bad tech.
The cost is less than the value of the energy it produces. If it wasn’t, nobody would be building reactors.
Seriously, what is even your argument here? It’s total nonsense.
What kind of dumb argument is that? "Nobody would do that if it was bad, so because people do it it must be good". Pff. "Drugs must be good, otherwise people wouldn't do them". "Shit must be good, otherwise flies wouldn't eat it".
Energy markets are merit order markets. As long as there's a single jerk that's more expensive than you, that's a good thing. Even better, if you own 10 power plants that are cheap as fuck, you'll do your best to keep the expensive plant running and selling its power, just because that's the price you'll then get for your 10 cheaper ones as well.
One kWh from wind turbines sells for about 8 cents where I live. From a nuclear plant, that's about 42 cents. That's more than I pay for it at my plug. Nuclear plants live on subsidies from the state. And afterwards they dump their waste at the feet of the people who paid extra for their stupid generation method.
Yes, that is why people unironically do drugs.
As for nuclear energy, it is cost competitive with renewables, and cheaper than fossil fuels. I'm not going to bother giving you links to supporting studies though, because let's be honest, you're not interested in changing your mind, and I don't argue with science deniers who are religiously hellbent on preconceived notions.
The point is that societies or governments should have more foresight than just to the next high.
I call bullshit. Here are my sources, where are yours?
https://www.bund-sh.de/energie/atomkraft/hintergrund/die-wahren-kosten-von-atomkraft/
https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-statt-atomar/mythos-5-liefert-uns-atomkraft-billigen-strom
https://www.mittelstandsbund.de/themen/energiewende/atomkraft-in-deutschland
What makes you think it’s not cost effective? Nuclear fuel is 98% recyclable, something which the US was (before Trump) considering building infrastructure for.
How recyclable are low and medium radioactive concrete walls from decommissioned power plants? Answer: not at all.
Why is there is not a single private company interested in building a nuclear reactor in Germany without subsidies? No company on this planet would ever construct a nuclear reactor if they had to finance everything - including all waste management - from selling energy.
German law demands that highly radioactive material must be safely stored and monitored for 1 million years. Sure, the quantity is lower but it's still in the hundreds to thousands of tons.
Please find a company willing to pay for all of this prior to constructing a nuclear power plant and I will admit you're right.
Concrete is 100% recyclable. Radioactive concrete could be reused in new power plants indefinitely. Stop voting for people who let corporations throw away things they don't want to deal with.
You're asking me why capitalism capitalizes? I don't think I need to explain to you why a corporation would hold out their hand if they know the government will pay for everything and they can reap even more profits, and if you're of an intellectual capacity that I do have to explain that, then you probably wouldn't understand anyway. I'm not even sure what your argument is here. It probably sounded good to you when you typed it, but the answer is so painfully obvious that I must be missing something, because who would would unironically ask that?
I haven't found any study about reusing radioactive concrete waste in new reactors. There are a couple for removing the radioactive contaminants but the process is fairly expensive. I'm not sure it's even possible to safely reuse (instead of decontaminate) radioactive concrete without harming workers.
As to your point about capitalism:
There are multiple private, non government subsidized gas power plants planned/in construction in Germany.
Private solar farms and wind plants are very common as well, although they are partially subsidized.
No company dares to touch nuclear power plants with a ten foot pole in Germany. Even reactivating partially deconstructed plants - which is both cheaper and quicker than rebuilding new one's - is considered "practically impossible" by Preussen Elektra and EnBW. Not even qualified workers exist anymore. Training and certifiying them would further require several years and tens, if not hundreds of millions of euros.
The one - and only one - group in Germany who wishes for a return of nuclear power are conservative populists who despise renewable energy (and wind turbines in particular).
Instead of wasting tens of billions euros, how about we use that money to massively expand battery storage and renewables as well as inter-European power lines?
Today, nuclear energy is only economical if you want to build and maintain nuclear bombs. That's pretty much it.