• TIEPilot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I would have suggested that as its the best bang for the buck. But people lose their mind when its on the table…

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Building nuclear in a country with proper safety standards and everything is insanely expensive, where did you get the idea that it’s the “best bang for the buck”? There are always cost overruns and they tend to be a multiple of the original project cost estimate.

      • MrKoyun
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Also you need to keep buying/extracting nuclear fuel to run a nuclear power plant… With solar, the sun is the fuel! With no buying or extracting, it removes a big ongoing cost from the equation and significantly improves self-reliance. I don’t understand how this seems to not communicate to people.

      • surewhynotlem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        A good chunk of the cost of a nuclear plant is all the steam driven turbines and power infrastructure. That’s already there in a retrofitted coal plant. And even without that, nuclear is cheaper in the long run. And even without that, not everything is about the god damned money.

    • liuther9
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      You want nuclear plant and natural disaster to meet each other?