• frezik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Nuclear got tons of subsidies. Lots of those plants were built for the dual purpose of energy and making bombs. It’s unlikely the United States would have half the reactors it does if not for the Cold War.

    At this point, it’s a matter of what’s most efficient for energy alone, and that ain’t nuclear. Take out every subsidy in every form of energy, and the people with money to invest will put it all in wind and solar.

    • pizzazz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Right now the comparison between France (61 GWs of installed nuclear) and Germany (130+ -!!!- GWs of installed renewables) is disastrous. Their choice to phase out their remaining plants was criminal but the policy is dumb in general, tying themselves to coal and gas power for the realistic future. I’m very curious to see when (or if) they’ll ever get to the same emission levels and how much time and money they’ll have wasted by then.

      BTW. Nuclear Power Plants pay themselves up in decades of operation. Of course a privateer is not extremely keen in this kind of investment. That is exactly why countries are supposed to invest in strategic infrastructure, which are partly indirectly financed by privateers through treasury bonds.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I agree shutting down fictional nuclear plants is dumb. Doesn’t mean we should build new ones.