And in “tell Us Something we Didn’t Already Know” news.

  • BigAssFan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Nah, even the wikipage shows double the price compared to solar or wind. Which isn’t surprising when you look at the basic technology of each energy type. And they all have to deal with a lot of bureaucracy.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Stop lying. No it doesn’t. Unless you can’t read the graph, it’s very similarly priced to the rest. Solar is significantly more expensive at low capacity but cheaper at high capacity. It’s approximately equal to coal and wind, depending on capacity. Nuclear can be cheaper than even the cheapest offshore wind.

      The graph showing nuclear getting more expensive at higher capacity does show something interesting though. I can’t say what causes that, but I assume larger plants have more bureaucracy to deal with, which artificially increases their cost. (Edit: I even read it wrong I think. It shows as more are installed they got more expensive, which implies a temporal relation. More laws restricting nuclear make it more expensive, which is not surprising. Nuclear would be very cheap if it stayed at the same cost as the minimum was.) It may be something else. It’s hard to say. Nuclear is basically right on the middle of the cost axis though.