Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm pretty sure I've read that nuclear power plants are the most expensive source of electricity. Might as well just use solar + wind + storage for cheaper?
Is it to build or operate?
In my country, we already have 2.5 plants active. The problem now with this anti nuclear stance is:
We have found a significant deposit of uranium, but we can't use it because uneducated activists and politicians protested when we tried to mine it so they banned ourselves from mining it because "radioactivity".
It could power us for close to no cost for 50+ years but noo we will continue to buy expensive gas and electricity. Great
Been a while since I've read about it, I think it was 30-year levelized cost (build + operation/waste management). Looking again, there seems to be a lot of variation between studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Global_studies.
It's not so simple. Often these costs are without storage and we currently don't even have the capacity to create so much storage.
Most of the cost for nuclear is designing and building the powerplant. Keeping working plants open is not so expensive. Building new ones will get cheaper if we build more of them.
Coal is generally still far worse per kwh, solar is the best with wind not far behind
Who'd have thought just leaving something out in the sun or wind would be cheaper than digging polluting nonsense out of the ground?