←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 4 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
reenorap ◴[12 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45225348[source]▶
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
replies(39): >>45225431 #>>45225480 #>>45225524 #>>45225535 #>>45225565 #>>45225613 #>>45225619 #>>45225755 #>>45225860 #>>45225949 #>>45225961 #>>45226031 #>>45226055 #>>45226067 #>>45226154 #>>45226181 #>>45226458 #>>45226594 #>>45226646 #>>45226658 #>>45226803 #>>45226943 #>>45226958 #>>45227052 #>>45227098 #>>45227206 #>>45227241 #>>45227262 #>>45227391 #>>45227592 #>>45227750 #>>45228008 #>>45228029 #>>45228207 #>>45228266 #>>45228536 #>>45229440 #>>45229710 #>>45229877 #
GloriousKoji ◴[12 Sep 25 20:09 UTC] No.45226181[source]▶
As someone also served by PG&E I don't think cheaper electricity will help. At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.
replies(3): >>45226274 #>>45226751 #>>45226805 #
theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 21:04 UTC] No.45226751[source]▶
The goal of making nuclear cheaper isn’t to lower consumer costs. It’s to displace CO2 emitting baseload sources like coal and gas.
replies(3): >>45226849 #>>45226917 #>>45227062 #
1. ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Sep 25 21:23 UTC] No.45226917[source]▶
Or you know, build renewables and storage which has in recent years reduced Californias fossil gas dependency by 40%.
replies(1): >>45226993 #
2. theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45226993[source]▶
“All of the above” seems a good approach. If this is an existential crisis, why would we not hedge our bets?

(Not everywhere has good sun for solar.)

replies(2): >>45227094 #>>45227947 #
3. s1mplicissimus ◴[12 Sep 25 21:40 UTC] No.45227094[source]▶
Solar is not the only alternative. Tidal, river flow, reservoir, wind, thermal come to mind in terms of renewables.
4. ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Sep 25 23:39 UTC] No.45227947[source]▶
That is what we did 20 years ago when the renewable industry barely existed.

What has happened since is that the nuclear industry essentially collapsed given the outcome of Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville and Hinkley Point C and can't build new plants while renewables and storage are delivering over 90% of new capacity in the US. Being the cheapest energy source in human history.

We've gone past the "throw stuff at the wall" phase, now we know what sticks and that is renewables and storage.

The places with worse sun conditions tend to have amazing wind resources. Or be such a tiny niche that caring about them is irrelevant, like the few people living in the wind kill of the arctic high north of the polar circle.