/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11468627
>The capital needed to build a new power plant is enormous

Based on what to be exact? Two cherry picked examples where projects were delayed by regulations and court battles?

> the renewable sector is growing so rapidly and getting so much cheaper

In Germany and other countries the renewables transition has stalled, there is no 'rapid growth'.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energy-stalls-amid-public-resistance-and-regulatory-hurdles/a-50280676

As for price, it has already been disproved >>11468544, anyone at this stage who assert renewables are 'cheaper' are just lying, what you've said is akin to a marketing gimmick that has been disproved time and time again through statistical and empirical data, in pic the nations who've invested the most in renewables are the ones who have the most expensive energy in Europe, it's a damning correlation to say the least.

>They will do little to comfort the people who are actually going to have to live with the reactor in their neighbourhood. If something does go wrong the effects could potentially be catastrophic, even if not fatal.

That argument falls flat on it's face once you consider the lives saved through air pollution by Nuclear energy, the appeal when Nuclear first came onto the scene was that it reduced air pollution, 3 million people die every year from fossil fuels, not even including the environmental damage, 'catastrophic' Nuclear has comparatively killed a fraction of that, when people say Nuclear has the lowest deaths per terrawatt hour its not bullshitting by any means.

>Solar panels and wind turbines don't carry the risk of forcing you to evacuate your lifelong home and your community and your job.

Depending on who you ask that's false too. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/can-wind-turbines-make-you-sick/


Nuclear is safer than renewables, has caused less deaths, is cheaper than renewables, and is environmentally friendly.

>>11082446
France still has the cheapest Electricity in Europe after eastern Euro nations who heavily use fossil fuels, and guess who's still the second most expensive?

>>11057420
>A nuclear reactor costs billions

a cost taken from British/American reactors thanks to layers of red tape on reactor construction by pigheaded greenies, and even so, a Nuclear reactor from commission will provide generation for decades longer than an equivalent renewable generator, plenty of time to pay that off while being a top electricity exporter

and also ignoring the fact solar panels will be replaced every 20 years (with 1% a year loss of generation) and wind being very maintenance intensive

>exactly nuclear can't compete meanwhile renewable installations just keep growing in the US

LMAO, i'm not agreeing with you at all, ofc fossil fuels is cheaper than Nuclear, or Renewables for that matter, the pic >>11057405 here proves it, all the countries below Finland in price are eastern euro countries that heavily use coal, but that doesn't matter, that assumes co2 emissions arent something to be considered.

>thanks for admitting you're completely ignorant

honest question, and like i said, even if Frances Nuclear industry is heavily subsidized, why is it so cheap? To the extent they are propping up Germany's (supposedly cheaper) renewables intensive grid?

>nice 4 year old image by the way, why were you afraid to show a more recent one like I did?

oh sorry, here's one from last year that shows Germany right at the top behind denmark like before, guess the whole renewables thing isn't doing so well isn't it?
This discussion so far really highlights the delusion of Renewables advocates, you could tell a renewables advocate the sky is blue and he will do all sorts of mental gymnastics on why it isn't and just completely deny reality in general, it's astonishing.