• IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower.

    Cost is cost and with new nuclear you can add on a fair chunk to whatever amount is quoted because they often go way over budget.

    Given renewables and storage is cheaper, why would you want to piss money away?

    Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.

    We’re been developing nuclear for 70 years. In that time it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened. Time to let go.

    • ExFed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Cost is cost … [in 70 years] it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.

      I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market … and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it’s another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?

        There it is.

        If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard. I could argue that we should continue to burn coal and gas while we make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time. No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.

        Hey, wait. Are you shilling for the fossil fuel industry?

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.

          Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody’s arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That’s the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.

          make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time

          We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.

          If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard.

          Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?

          If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            All your sophistry, ignorance, and rudeness aside, you’ve yet to make a single compelling argument for nuclear.

            I think we’re done here.