Technology

59257 readers

2898 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

946

40% of US electricity is now emissions-free (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

229 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Ah, perhaps my source was off. Thanks for the additional data.

But looking at it another way, nuclear is less than twice coal. Estimating the cost of that georgia plant would put it at $16-17B, so those overruns would be atypical.

But my main point on cost is that government investment has been lacking in nuclear compared to renewables: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/12/27/why-is-solar-energy-getting-250-times-more-in-federal-tax-credits-than-nuclear/?sh=4a783c3221cf

Without investment, it's going to stay just as expensive. And the main regulating body not having a mandate to develop the technology has just been holding us back.