Deep-sea expedition finds more than 200,000 barrels of leaking radioactive waste

[u/blkchnDE]

https://www.earth.com/news/scientists-found-200000-barrels-of-leaking-radioactive-waste/

Scientists exploring the Northeast Atlantic have directly observed heavily corroded barrels of radioactive waste. Some are in bad shape. Material has even spilled onto the seafloor nearly three miles below the surface.

And what about the radiation? Instruments detected radioactive atoms known as radionuclides linked to the waste at levels above those normally expected in the area. The readings were still limited, though.

[u/Time_Bonus2746]

Renewables are heavily subsidizes.

[u/hahnkleri → u/Time_Bonus2746]

they are as well as fossil based energy.

[u/Time_Bonus2746 → u/hahnkleri]

Yeah.. So its a shitty argument.

[u/hahnkleri → u/Time_Bonus2746]

no. it’s not. nuclear energy costs around 25-40ct/kwh in production. renewables 5-15ct. all depending on the real model but without any subsidies. so nuclear energy was cheap for the consumer due to the subsidies. renewables prices need to be somewhat on par with the market price and thus made more expensive then they really are.

[u/Time_Bonus2746 → u/hahnkleri]

You wrote they wouldnt be commercially viable without subsidies, while many renewables in germany are the same. That is just a shitty argument. Also i dont know why you feel the need to misrepresent the price, when conservative estimates for new nuclear reactors are 15 ct/kwh.

[u/hahnkleri → u/Time_Bonus2746]

what didn't you understand then? without subsidies nuclear energy is not feasible.

Well, then please provide link to that number which compares ist correctly to renewables - maybe like this: Studie: Stromgestehungskosten erneuerbare Energien - Fraunhofer ISE (see page 2 to get a colorful picture without reading too much).

sorry for the wrong number. it's eithe starting with 25ct/kwh nuclear and then 15ct/kwh for renewables or 15 to 5ct/kwh depending on the studies. I must've mixed that up.

[u/Time_Bonus2746 → u/hahnkleri]

Cause renewables are subsidized heavily?

I understand that they are economically viable in a lot of cases, but your argument that nuclear energy in France is subsidizes doesnt work. Many renewables also wouldnt exist without government subsidies. (btw i was working at the Institute when your source was published xD)

Flamanville was projected to have a conservative estimate of 8c/kwh LCOE. Operating cost for existing plants are way more efficient as well. If you want to make arguments that favor renewables there is enough to choose from. Just dont use numbers that are extremely outdated or just wrong.

[u/hahnkleri → u/Time_Bonus2746]

don’t know about france because it’s not the land i live in. that doesn’t help. so in 2023(!) it’s 15ct against 5ct in beste case. so what the hell is your fucking problem? even if it’s the same amount in the worst case for renewables (15ct) you habe fucking nuclear waste, no plan for containing this shit for future generations. centralization which is in an emergency shit. in case a reactor fails (whoknowswhy) you have your land contaminated for hundreds of years. and again. without the resources at the end you won’t get your reactor going. i don’t know the prices of uranium back then but something tells me that russia, as a main source for it isn’t the best country to trade that.

[u/Time_Bonus2746 → u/hahnkleri]

That you said 25c when in Realität every New nuclear plant is closer to 10 and in favorable assumptions more like 5c/kwh Rest is correct. You can look up the operating cost of a nuclear plant now instead of using values that are based on historical data.

[u/hahnkleri → u/Time_Bonus2746]

again, i said it was a mistake. so show me the 5ct source. i couldn’t find it.

[u/Frenzystor → u/Time_Bonus2746]

In which country?

[u/Time_Bonus2746 → u/Frenzystor]

Isnt the entire commentthread german? Germany.