• zxqwas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can cherry pick the numbers to show whatever you like.

      Wikipedia has an article on the economics of nuclear power. To summarize: it’s expensive upfront. If you look at it from a pure commercial enterprise it’s not really worth it. If you look at it as decarbonizing the future it’s better.

      Solar and wind is cheaper, but intermittent and it’s a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

      • VibeSurgeon@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        it’s a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

        Given the average time to build one single nuclear power plant, you should consider whether we have time to finish construction of one before we cook ourselves.

      • Gladaed@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Cheaper is the definition of better. Power is a fungible good. Price is what matters. And it’s not like they include the cost of waste handling in the price of nuclear energy. For simplicity it is easiest to assume it free. And it’s not like it would change the result of the calculus.

        • zxqwas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          A low maximum price is a better measurement of what is good.

          We had 6 consecutive weeks of country wide harsh winter temperatures this year. Suddenly the fact that electricity was almost free and occasionally negative spot price during summer was irrelevant.