• meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is AN answer, but also not the only answer. Generating and moving power around is extremely complex and just seeing “Solar cheaper per Watt” and defining it as the best in all cases is silly. If you changed the axis to be size per MWh, then you would draw a totally different conclusion.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      It was the answer. Now solar is so cheap that spamming panels and investing into ways to save the excess energy seems cheaper. By the time nuclear plants are done you’re going to be at least 8 years into the future. Solar panels however are directly implementable. And even cheaper now.

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

      It’s really not even AN answer. It’s so expensive to build them, requires hoards of highly specialised people to build and operate, takes decades to build all the while were relying on fossil fuels still until it can generate power, has a bigger carbon impact than renewables due to massive amounts of concrete used in building decommission and waste storage, is more expensive per mw, and while on average safer than most types of power plant, if something unexpected happens shit goes extremely bad.

      It just has way way way too many downsides compared to wind or solar or basically any other renewable to the point its just not really worth pursuing.

      • Lynthe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I mean given that new nuclear plants haven’t been made in quite some time it’s too be expected that the average cost rises as costs for maintaining older plants also rises as they reach the end of their projected life cycle. In a few years when solar arrays have risen maintenance costs it won’t change the fact that it’s an essential power source, so the same logic should be applied to all clean energy.

        With approaches to reducing emissions we should take a “yes and” approach. Yes nuclear is a way to reduce emissions and we need to invest in solar wind and hydro. This is true regardless of what we put at the front of that sentence!

        • cheesebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          With approaches to reducing emissions we should take a “yes and” approach.

          UGH, YES, THANK YOU! Perfect should not be the enemy of good.