I mean, seriously… “Nuclear isn’t bad if you just disregard the enormous cost, which usually don’t even include the socialised cost of accidents that could spoil half a country or the handling of lethal waste that’ll kill you for longer than our species existed” is such a wild take… Yeah, if it’s too expensive to be used efficiently then it’s probably a bad tech.
What kind of dumb argument is that? “Nobody would do that if it was bad, so because people do it it must be good”. Pff. “Drugs must be good, otherwise people wouldn’t do them”. “Shit must be good, otherwise flies wouldn’t eat it”.
Energy markets are merit order markets. As long as there’s a single jerk that’s more expensive than you, that’s a good thing. Even better, if you own 10 power plants that are cheap as fuck, you’ll do your best to keep the expensive plant running and selling its power, just because that’s the price you’ll then get for your 10 cheaper ones as well.
One kWh from wind turbines sells for about 8 cents where I live. From a nuclear plant, that’s about 42 cents. That’s more than I pay for it at my plug. Nuclear plants live on subsidies from the state. And afterwards they dump their waste at the feet of the people who paid extra for their stupid generation method.
Drugs must be good, otherwise people wouldn’t do them
Yes, that is why people unironically do drugs.
As for nuclear energy, it is cost competitive with renewables, and cheaper than fossil fuels. I’m not going to bother giving you links to supporting studies though, because let’s be honest, you’re not interested in changing your mind, and I don’t argue with science deniers who are religiously hellbent on preconceived notions.
Being ineffective kind of makes it bad though.
/edit
I mean, seriously… “Nuclear isn’t bad if you just disregard the enormous cost, which usually don’t even include the socialised cost of accidents that could spoil half a country or the handling of lethal waste that’ll kill you for longer than our species existed” is such a wild take… Yeah, if it’s too expensive to be used efficiently then it’s probably a bad tech.
The cost is less than the value of the energy it produces. If it wasn’t, nobody would be building reactors.
Seriously, what is even your argument here? It’s total nonsense.
What kind of dumb argument is that? “Nobody would do that if it was bad, so because people do it it must be good”. Pff. “Drugs must be good, otherwise people wouldn’t do them”. “Shit must be good, otherwise flies wouldn’t eat it”.
Energy markets are merit order markets. As long as there’s a single jerk that’s more expensive than you, that’s a good thing. Even better, if you own 10 power plants that are cheap as fuck, you’ll do your best to keep the expensive plant running and selling its power, just because that’s the price you’ll then get for your 10 cheaper ones as well.
One kWh from wind turbines sells for about 8 cents where I live. From a nuclear plant, that’s about 42 cents. That’s more than I pay for it at my plug. Nuclear plants live on subsidies from the state. And afterwards they dump their waste at the feet of the people who paid extra for their stupid generation method.
Yes, that is why people unironically do drugs.
As for nuclear energy, it is cost competitive with renewables, and cheaper than fossil fuels. I’m not going to bother giving you links to supporting studies though, because let’s be honest, you’re not interested in changing your mind, and I don’t argue with science deniers who are religiously hellbent on preconceived notions.
The point is that societies or governments should have more foresight than just to the next high.
I call bullshit. Here are my sources, where are yours?
https://www.bund-sh.de/energie/atomkraft/hintergrund/die-wahren-kosten-von-atomkraft/
https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-statt-atomar/mythos-5-liefert-uns-atomkraft-billigen-strom
https://www.mittelstandsbund.de/themen/energiewende/atomkraft-in-deutschland