this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
848 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17453 readers
699 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It's still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it's pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.

Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Many active reactors rely on old designs, we have new ones now that are far cleaner. Some even use existing waste as fuel, so we would be able to get rid of those old stock piles.

Ofc the oil industry is fighting that tooth and nail since it doesn't jive with their FUD campaign

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not only doesn't it follow their FUD, but their existing business cannot easily transition to it since the entire process is completely different. Oil, coal, and natural gas are all fairly similar from their perspective.

[–] cows_are_underrated 1 points 3 months ago

The only thing I'm curious about in terms of using waste as energy source is how much it costs. If we can build reactors that have a good efficiency and don't cost too much its great. However if it costs way to much it isn't really useful even if the Idea of reducing our waste is good, since ain't anyone is paying for it if you can much cheaper renewable energy.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah and because those new designs are so great we see them installed all over the world. Except the projects take decades, skyrocket in costs and get delayed for decades on top.

Advocating for nuclear power now is in the best interest of the oil lobby. And it is simply impossible to solve the urgent energy transition with it, even if all the miracles promised about it were true.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Except the projects take decades, skyrocket in costs and get delayed for decades on top.

You're literally spreading oil lobby propaganda, the only reason it's like that is because of excessive regulation and red tape lobbied for by the oil execs and citizen pushback due to their fear mongering campaign

[–] JamesFire@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Except the projects take decades, skyrocket in costs and get delayed for decades on top.

France is doing just fine with none of those issues.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/frances-edf-faces-uphill-battle-as-europes-demand-for-nuclear-reactors-grows/

The budget could increase by 70-90% compared to initial estimates, with commissioning delayed up to four to six years.

In France, the government plans to build six EPR – with a possibility of eight more – at an average cost of €52 billion. The first commissioning is scheduled for 2035.

However, according to Les Échos, the costs have already been revised upwards by 30%. When for a comment, EDF CEO Luc Rémont “would not confirm any figures.”