Meanwhile in Germany:

      • Arlaerion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Its interesting they use “most recent generation of turbines” but don’t do that on nuclear. Also WISE is not a credible source. It’s an anti-nuclear organisation with guys like Mycle Schneider on board.

        Which source says 117g/kWh for nuclear? IPCC 2014 says 12g, UNECE 2020 about 5.1g (for EU28 nuclear).

        • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Its interesting they use “most recent generation of turbines” but don’t do that on nuclear.

          Feel free to tell us how much cheaper current nuclear power plants are than the ones that were built in the 70s and 80s.

          I’m sure there’s some great data from Flamanville, Olkiluoto or Hinkley Point, showing us all how cheap and affordable nuclear has become.

          • Arlaerion@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            If you thought just a little bit about what I wrote, you would know I was discussing the second graph.

            Answer my points, not reinterpret them to fit your agenda.

      • ByGourou@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        “Consequential cost to health and environnement” of nuclear if higher that coal ? Wtf, in what world ?

        Coal is more radioactive than nuclear plant, and that’s the lesser issue, between air polution, plant burning, and the effect of that much co2 being released, that can’t be true.

        Either it’s bullshit or I missunderstood the graph.