[deleted]
Comment on puts hair on ya chest
Gork@lemm.ee 6 days ago
Too 👏 cheap 👏 to 👏 meter
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 6 days ago
BussyCat@lemmy.world 5 days ago
More people die from wind turbines and hydro than from nuclear on a per tWh basis. If we actually want to save lives we would require higher levels of safety standards on fossil fuels that are magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear
Zink@programming.dev 5 days ago
Given the up-front cost of any kind of reactor, I don’t think the concept of a usage-based electric bill goes away as long as it’s corporations competing for customers. Maybe eventually it would be like ISPs where it’s a flat fee depending on the size of your connection. I guess it could be totally unmetered then.
Like so many things, it gets a lot simpler if it’s the government supplying the service.
psud@aussie.zone 19 hours ago
It’s not too cheap to meter even when provided as a public service. Nuclear is more expensive than battery + solar, more expensive than wind, more expensive than coal
“Too cheap to meter” was a lie that ignored costs of safety and decommissioning.
Zink@programming.dev 10 hours ago
Yeah I agree, and you still hear that BS about fusion power, that it will be an unlimited source of cheap/free clean energy.
I guess I could imagine scenarios where power is not metered and is supported via taxes, maybe in a scenario where citizens have a right to energy just like a right to healthcare. It’s not free by any means, but the people who make the most money and thus benefit the most from the infrastructure end up paying into it the most. And the truly poor would get free (to them) electricity.