←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
m101 ◴[] No.45230060[source]
I think a good exercise for the reader is to reflect on why they were ever against nuclear power in the first place. Nuclear power was always the greenest, most climate friendly, safest, cheapest (save for what we do to ourselves), most energy dense, most long lasting, option.
replies(25): >>45230185 #>>45230223 #>>45230479 #>>45230658 #>>45230757 #>>45231144 #>>45231518 #>>45231738 #>>45232518 #>>45232615 #>>45232756 #>>45232757 #>>45232937 #>>45233169 #>>45233513 #>>45233762 #>>45233817 #>>45233825 #>>45234181 #>>45234637 #>>45234828 #>>45235394 #>>45238856 #>>45240108 #>>45243016 #
kolinko ◴[] No.45230658[source]
So far it was either the cheapest or the safest.

Also, solar is now both cheaper and safer.

replies(5): >>45230728 #>>45231404 #>>45231544 #>>45231632 #>>45237449 #
pzo ◴[] No.45230728[source]
but it's not 24/7 and europe even worse in winter and fall. Solar is unrealistic to replace most energy usage [1]. In EU it's just less than 5% usage. In germany less than 6% usage. And wind is not a replacement either (less than 11% energy usage in germany).

And just for comparison in france nuclear power plants provides 37% of energy

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

replies(6): >>45230861 #>>45231238 #>>45231374 #>>45231542 #>>45231627 #>>45233578 #
zekrioca ◴[] No.45233578[source]
Have you ever heard of batteries?
replies(2): >>45235015 #>>45237453 #
UltraSane ◴[] No.45237453[source]
Nuclear at $6,000-12,000/kW installed capacity becomes cheaper than solar+battery somewhere between 1-3 days of required backup.
replies(2): >>45240037 #>>45245670 #
zekrioca ◴[] No.45245670{4}[source]
https://www.tesla.com/megapack
replies(1): >>45252054 #
1. UltraSane ◴[] No.45252054{5}[source]
Total annual global electricity consumption in 2024 was 30,856 TWh so 36GWh of capacity is about one millionth of global electricity consumption.