Comment on YSK that risks to exposure of nuclear radition are often over exaggerated by considering a Linear No Threshold (LNT), which does not match with many studies.

Tudsamfa@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  A lot of the cost is because of things like LNT. We require them to be absurdly cautious, beyond reason, and require tons of bureaucracy that drive the cost and time line to ridiculous levels. This is on purpose. This is all manufactured to prevent nuclear power from out competing dirty energy. We need to remove a lot of this so it can compete on even footing. We don’t require the same oversight for coal plants, even though they produce more radioactive waste, for example. It isn’t reasonable to compare the costs, as they are in the US, to each other.

  source
• sga@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  that by itself was not a claim, i knew there would be comparisons with other forms of renewable energy, so i wrote why some of them may or may not work, so it is meant to be read like

  “Are there not better means of renewable energy generation like solar?”

  “Are there not better means of renewable energy generation like wind?”

  where I live (cost seems to be rather location dependant) is creating cheap energy

  mostly becuse in most places, nuclear does not recieve subsidies. most other forms of energy (renewable or not) are subsidised a lot. And most politician would not want to add subsidies because it hurts their popularity. it is always taboo to do anything nuclear. there are reasons why nmri became mri, nuclear fusion research project just goes by fusion research.

  source

  • chillhelm@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    mostly becuse in most places, nuclear does not recieve subsidies.

    This is just not true. Nuclear plants receive subsidies in the US and most European countries. The big exception being Germany, where the current government tried to reenter nuclear energy production, but they could find any private sector partners that wanted to build new plants without significant subsidies.

    Subsidies for nuclear plants are usually payed out during construction and decommission of plants, but that’s still subsidies.

    source

    • sga@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Nuclear plants receive subsidies in the US and most European countries.

      but in most places, the official policy is not to expand their infra. it is either maintainance only, and/or decommision at end of life.

      Subsidies for nuclear plants are usually payed out during construction and decommission of plants, but that’s still subsidies.

      true.

      but for other renewables, the actual material is subsidised. for example, in many places, solar panel installation recieve govt subsidies - 10-50%.

      source
  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’m pretty sure it’s not subsidies, but safety standards. I’m not trying to pretend to understand Lazards “levelized cost of electricity”, and their graphs are seem to be off by 20 or I don’t read them correctly, but they are at least very clear that subsidies are taken out when they make their comparison. Nuclear is still the most expensive no matter how you slice it (except rooftop residential solar, but I think that gets around paying energy providers or something). Anyway, I’m more willing to trust them than the world nuclear association on if nuclear is price competitive.

    I’ll grant you a better argument for next time: Nuclear is incredibly safe compared to other energy sources, but is uniquely held to a way higher safety standard than anything else. And reducing the cost of nuclear by reducing safety standards actually is unpopular, so politicians don’t do it and the cost keeps rising.

    I’d still disagree on loosening safety restrictions, but at least that would be true.

    source

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’d still disagree on loosening safety restrictions, but at least that would be true, instead of blaming subsidies.

      Why not? I’m assuming you watched the video in the OP. A lot of the safety standards are based on a model that just doesn’t work. It’s all designed to keep dirty energy more profitable. Why do you disagree with removing standards that are unnecessary? I’m assuming you do agree there is some unnecessary regulations, right?

      source
    • sga@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And reducing the cost of nuclear by reducing safety standards actually is unpopular

      i have said the same in other comment, but we are not suggesting raise the limits, but make it to public that tiny amounts of radiation is not bad. so someone who protests building a nuclear power plant because they get an additional 1mSv of radiation (safe limitt currently is aroun 5mSv), it does not mean their risk of getting cancer has increased by 20% or something.

      in case there is a small nuclear spill away, there is no need to a town/state wide lockdown, which completey brings all economic activity of that state to halt. plus the paranoia, and additional cost to handle increased medical vists. i am not trying to normalise spillaways, just that if it is contained, then there is no need to be paranoid.

      source

      • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Sorry, that part was not meant to imply you specifically want to reduce safety standards, just that if you want to have it be competitive on the energy market, you would have to do something about that, or subsidise it by an absurd amount.

        But the point still stands, nuclear energy is expensive, and it’s not because of subsidies to other energy sources. Please don’t claim so next time.

        source