Now nukes are radically more expensive than alternatives even neglecting the massive subsidies.
Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
It was finally shutdown and now most of our power is "green" 59% from nuclear, 24% from hydroelectricity, 8% from wind, and 1% from solar.
Curious.. if "solar" and "wind" are so great why is Nuclear producing 59% of our energy? Perhaps because our climate isnt great for solar (dark winters)?
No matter the energy source, NIMBY will be there to protest.
when we built wind farms the protesters claimed it "made them sick"?? "Wind turbines making us sick: Protesters"
When we built solar, they protested that too: "Solar project demonstration in Tay Township"
Everyone LOVES the convenience of power, as long as the generation is not near them?
I live within 10KM of a rather large (3,100 MW) nuclear plant, i have no issues with it as it is cleaner vs most sources and delivers reliable power.
Can you show us any "renewables" that were not government subsidized as well?
https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2021-commercial-....
Seems "renweables" love the government subsidy bandagon as well?
Speaking of "government coercion" - this is exactly how Ontario got green energy in the first place.
First they mandated it, then they forced people to accept the wind farms despite their numerous protests.
take a read: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-wind-power-opponents-prot...
As i posted above, no matter the power source, you can be 100% confident NIMBY will be there to protest it.
In Ontario, the cost to generate power is :
- Hydroelectric (5cents)
- Wind (8.6 cents)
- Solar (15.7 cents)
- Nuclear (16.5 cents).
Added bonus, nuclear produces power 24x7, when it is raining or cloudy, when we have a heat wave and zero winds.. in the cold dark winter nights...
If renewables are such a good deal, why is there so little of it?
As i posted, Ontario gets 59% of its power from nuclear, 5% from wind and 1% from solar...
Citation needed.
Also most of the prohibitive costs surrounding nuclear are artificial - bureaucratic overhead vs. real costs governed by implementing the technology.
Renewables incur no such expenses.
I didn't even count disaster insurance, which is always provided free by taxpayers because no nuke could pay it and compete.
The fact that nuclear costs only skyrocketed in the US while they stayed relatively constant or decreased in other countries suggests quite strongly the issue is political, not technical. In countries like South Korea, the LCOE of nuclear is less than half that of solar.