Comment

einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

I am open to change my mind on this, but i never seen evidence for a single one that was profitable when you include development cost, maintenance, build back and disposal (and long term maintenance of disposal).

source

Sort:hotnew top

fullsquare@awful.systems ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
most of costs are costs of construction. french and koreans don’t seem discouraged and some plants in japan and china were built under budget

source
- LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  The costs of construction and deconstruction are significant. You cannot just ignore them. That is useless cherry picking.
  
  source
GrayBackgroundMusic@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

open to change my mind on this

OK, here’s a starting point youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY

source
- einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Ok i gave this the benefit of the doubt and watched the whole video.
  
  Things there where not included in the calculation:
  
  Cost of compensating for environmental destruction from uran mines (and health care costs for thost impacted by the radio active dust from them)
  
  Political cost of importing fissile fuel from other nations (importing from russia/usa gives russia/usa leverage over you wich then can get expensive in other parts of the economy)
  
  Cost at end of plant life cycle, aka building it back once the structure has aged beyond what maintenance can fix
  
  Cost of storing and maintaining radio active waste for the next few million years
  
  The video also only compares those selective picked numbers to fossil fuels and not things like solar or wind.
  
  This video did not change my opinion, but thanks for suggesting it.
  
  source