• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it’s generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that’s factoring the cost of batteries.

    Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it’s the better option a suspicious one.

    Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn’t resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it’s still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.

    Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.

    Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn’t running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?

    • Hyperi0n@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.

      The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.