• jackpot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    are you arguing solar is more economical than nucleae cause if so youre wrong by a longshot

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      That was true 20 years ago. You are working off extremely outdated information.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t know where nuclear advocates got the idea that their preferred method is the cheapest. It’s ludicrously untrue. Just a bunch of talking points that were designed to take on Greenpeace in the 90s, but were never updated with changing economics of energy.

        I can see why Microsoft would go for it in this use case. It’s a steady load of power all the time. Their use case is also of questionable benefit to the rest of humanity, but I see why they’d go for it.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The people who actually put money into energy projects are signalling their preferences quite clearly. They took a look at nuclear’s long history of cost and schedule overruns, and then invested in the one that can be up and running in six months. The US government has been willing to issue licenses for new nuclear if companies have their shit in order. Nobody is buying.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Invest in a next generation technology that is yet unproven, but hopes to solve the financial problems that have plagued traditional reactor projects. And years away from actual implementation, if it happens at all.