• zik@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    But the IEA is a lobby group. It’s not like their numbers have any credibility. Like I said, nuclear is way more expensive by all numbers except fake ones.

    • m3m3lord@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is it a lobby group? Do you have any sources to back up your claim or is it simply based on your bias because you do not agree with the data they put together? Again, even if you discount their data, there are plenty of other studdies that corroborate the fact that nuclear is not the most expensive method of producing electricity, are all of them somehow wrong? What you need to understand is that there are different factors that can be included which can dramatically change whether one way of producing electricity is better or worse. Nuclear has a high up front capital cost but a very low operating cost per MW. Solar and wind are cheap initially but require replacement every 10 years or more and also generally need a way to store energy if they make up a bulk of the grid. If you factor in the lifecycle and energy storage costs, they are comparable to well designed nuclear plants. I am from ontario, and nuclear has been an incredible benefit to the province.