top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
[–] 268 points 3 months ago* (44 children)

Well yeah, it's a service. Expecting profit from necessary services is stupid and counter-productive but it makes a few people rich so of course it happens then you get memes like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Efficient use of resources still matters in a service-driven model.

    The service in this case is to provide electricity - if other alternatives can provide the same system of electricity while using less resources in the process, then it is clearly preferable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Externalized costs are a thing though. For instance, a coal plant spewing smoke (and radiation) costs everyone else money. A nuclear plant OTOH is usually responsible for dealing with all of its own shit. So it's not always an apples to apples comparison to consider just the profitability of a project.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    Absolutely. I don't know that anyone is arguing for coal, except for Trump, but he's also completely deranged.

    Wind and solar have very little externalities, however. I'd even call their externalities trivial.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (31 replies)
    [–] 105 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    If you ever need firefighters make sure you ONLY go to a profitable firehouse, or you'll be a huge hypocrite. Either that or stupid.

    Also make sure you ONLY drive on profitable roads, and ONLY use private delivery services. And ONLY during the day because of streetlights.

    A public service should be a public service, not profitable from the basic level.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 104 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

    I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    So what has released more uncontrolled waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Our entire global community is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars from consequences of petro, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power generation. Nukes don't replace solar and wind, they complement them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon (TM) (promised decades ago).

    We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 66 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You’re in the comments trying to act like you’re more noble, but if your very first angle and the one you built your post on is about profitability then you’ve already lost. You made a strawman and are just mad that it was called out.

    Yea, renewables would be better, for sure. Talk about that, then, if that’s what you really care about.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 63 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 56 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    There has never been a reactor that produced more energy than it took to construct? You sure about that?

    Otherwise this is a capitalism meme, not a science meme.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 44 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Even if this were true, would that be important nowadays? If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission). Fusion would be great though

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    It can't. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn't worth it.

    The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it's a combo deal) and especially more "for the people" (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).

    I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn't in any way shape or form. Countries who're dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They're building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 38 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

    First of all. I'm against nuclear power plants.

    But. This right here, is a weird argument against it. I would even say, its no argument against it at all. We should not produce anything with the focus to make a profit. We should produce to meet needs. I would say that for the entire industry.

    And even if you're not for a democratic industry that is owned by the people, you should at least see that there are some services where it just makes even less sense to look for profit. For example energy production, healthcare, public transport or the food industry. These are all fundamental services that just need to work. They should never have to focus on generating a profit. Even many liberals have realised this.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    From Wikipedia

    In 2019, the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a regulated industry 4.3% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 6.6%) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[63] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40-year lifetime.[64]

    The article discusses why that number is probably flawed and relies on cherry picked data, but it seems somewhat close to profitability. Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh (already cheaper than some of US) should be viable, yeah?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 13 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Neither are most roads, sewers or hospitals, we are talking basic infrastructure here, whether it is profitable seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

    And again, not a huge fan of nuclear power plants, but this argument is not one I hold against them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Fossil fuels are only 'profitable' if you ignore the long-term environmental costs.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 9 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Is this true? Because Holy shit this would be hilarious if it was.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›