49
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
(www.pv-magazine.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
49 points (98.0% liked)
technology
24341 readers
116 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Study is only about Denmark which has both an advanced Wind Turbine industry and a lot of wind. This is not generalisable.
Study calculates the financial costs, not the energetic cost. Given that the energy market has a lot of subsidies, taxes and government owned companies, the prices in currency are not a good representation of the real costs. A framework like EROI (Energy Return On Investment) is a much better indicator, because it looks at the amount of energy generated per amount of energy spent.
Nuclear power is expensive because it has ridiculous safety demands compared to all other technologies. If all energy sources would have to incorperate the potential risks they pose in their safety measures, they'd be much more expensive. To illustrate: The Fukushima disaster cost two (2!) lives, whereas each year, 6 to 9 million people die because of the effects of fossil fuel generated air pollution. If owners of fossil infrastructure would be liable for those deads in the same sense as owners of nuclear industry currently are, nuclear would blow the competition out of the water.