5 ms·

No country has ever made nuclear power profitable, it is always subsidized.

by BMc2020 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
Other non-renewable energy sources are also subsidized when you factor in second order effects, like for example the breathing health issues caused by coal particulate emissions, or the global warming caused from CO2 from extracting and burning gas. Nuclear is truly the most environmentally friendly.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > Nuclear is truly zero emissions on the environment. It is low emissions, but it isn’t zero and other sources are lower (wind turbine - see below). I assume it’s the mining, processing, storage and vast quantities of concrete in the plants. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the...
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    That's why I said "non-renewable".
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    Nuclear is zero emissions during operation. Renewables are also non-zero emissions during construction, and the required resources (per kWh produced) are around 10x higher.
credit_guy 1y ago
Maybe except China? They've built 37 reactors in the last 10 years (with a total capacity of 20 GW) and have 30 more under construction with a total capacity of 31 GW [1]. It is possible this is all subsidized construction, like lots of things in China. How could you tell? Still, there's also a fairly good chance they found a way to make them economical, just like they build roads and bridges and buildings and railways at a much lower cost point than the West. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
mpweiher 1y ago
That turns out not to be true. Here a short primer on the economics of nuclear reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY Intermittent renewables on the other hand require massive subsidies.

No country has ever made nuclear power profitable, it is always subsidized.

Other non-renewable energy sources are also subsidized when you factor in second order effects, like for example the breathing health issues caused by coal particulate emissions, or the global warming caused from CO2 from extracting and burning gas. Nuclear is truly the most environmentally friendly.

lostlogin 1y ago
> Nuclear is truly zero emissions on the environment. It is low emissions, but it isn’t zero and other sources are lower (wind turbine - see below). I assume it’s the mining, processing, storage and vast quantities of concrete in the plants. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the...
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  That's why I said "non-renewable".
- mpweiher 1y ago
  Nuclear is zero emissions during operation. Renewables are also non-zero emissions during construction, and the required resources (per kWh produced) are around 10x higher.

credit_guy 1y ago

Maybe except China? They've built 37 reactors in the last 10 years (with a total capacity of 20 GW) and have 30 more under construction with a total capacity of 31 GW [1]. It is possible this is all subsidized construction, like lots of things in China. How could you tell? Still, there's also a fairly good chance they found a way to make them economical, just like they build roads and bridges and buildings and railways at a much lower cost point than the West. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

mpweiher 1y ago

That turns out not to be true. Here a short primer on the economics of nuclear reactors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY Intermittent renewables on the other hand require massive subsidies.