• Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, all the nuclear projects they announce go hugely over budget and often get cancelled because the money pulls out because it’s impossible to be profitable while all the wind farms and solar installations are doing far better than projected and the cost of construction is constantly falling.

    No one actually interested in power generation is looking at what’s happening and coming to the conclusion that these oil company shills are trying to push, it just makes no sense.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      One only has to look up the wikipedia page of the finnish reactor that just came online. Planning started 2005, with an estimated completion date of 2010 for a flat 3bil. Euros. In the end it took 18 years and 11bil. Euros. And now it shuts down during the summer as it can’t compete with renewables.

      • Cannacheques@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meh I’m sure nuclear could or would have it’s place, I just don’t know if anyone wants to take the risk now since the earthquake in Japan

        • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The earthquake has very little to do with the lack of new nuclear power plants. They simply cost too much, take too long to come online and take too long to turn a profit to be seen as viable, when renewables are already cheaper and less risky and are set to become even less expensive, all the while storage capacity becomes cheaper too.