▲ 54 ▼ Not a single one (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 months ago by einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (7 children) Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] fullsquare@awful.systems 19 points 3 months ago (6 children) they also last decades and are cheap to run with extremely low carbon emissions permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 months ago (5 children) Any source for this significant claim? The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive: https://www.base.bund.de/shareddocs/faktencheck/base/de/atomstrom-alternative-energiequellen-kosten.html There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.867887.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2023_10_1/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_technischer_und_oekonomischer_grundlagen.html https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.670481.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2019_30_1/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_keine_option_fuer_eine_klimafreundliche_energieversorgung.html At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage. The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) Nothing, because they have only space for 6500 t high-level nuclear waste which is already reserved for Finnish nuclear waste, whereas Germany has like 17.000 t. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -3 points 3 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIa99touXQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 19 points 3 months ago (6 children) they also last decades and are cheap to run with extremely low carbon emissions permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 months ago (5 children) Any source for this significant claim? The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive: https://www.base.bund.de/shareddocs/faktencheck/base/de/atomstrom-alternative-energiequellen-kosten.html There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.867887.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2023_10_1/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_technischer_und_oekonomischer_grundlagen.html https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.670481.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2019_30_1/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_keine_option_fuer_eine_klimafreundliche_energieversorgung.html At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage. The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) Nothing, because they have only space for 6500 t high-level nuclear waste which is already reserved for Finnish nuclear waste, whereas Germany has like 17.000 t. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -3 points 3 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIa99touXQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 months ago (5 children) Any source for this significant claim? The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive: https://www.base.bund.de/shareddocs/faktencheck/base/de/atomstrom-alternative-energiequellen-kosten.html There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.867887.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2023_10_1/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_technischer_und_oekonomischer_grundlagen.html https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.670481.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2019_30_1/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_keine_option_fuer_eine_klimafreundliche_energieversorgung.html At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage. The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) Nothing, because they have only space for 6500 t high-level nuclear waste which is already reserved for Finnish nuclear waste, whereas Germany has like 17.000 t. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -3 points 3 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIa99touXQ permalink fedilink source parent
[+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) Nothing, because they have only space for 6500 t high-level nuclear waste which is already reserved for Finnish nuclear waste, whereas Germany has like 17.000 t. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent [–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -3 points 3 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIa99touXQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago (2 children) Nothing, because they have only space for 6500 t high-level nuclear waste which is already reserved for Finnish nuclear waste, whereas Germany has like 17.000 t. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] crimson_iris@piefed.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 months ago Now I get what you mean. I should have phrased this better. I meant "no such thing as safe long term storage [could be determined in Germany yet]". Which means, as of today, they could not find a safe location in Germany to build such a storage facility like Finland did. Germany is densely populated and the ground/earth is mostly unsuited for long time storage. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works [S] -3 points 3 months ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkIa99touXQ permalink fedilink source parent