this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026
983 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
89137 readers
3607 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, you're stringing words together.
Cost is a very real measure.
You could say that the numbers scribbled down on pieces of paper next to a dollar sign are artificial or miscalculated, but the invested manpower and resources and time (and a large number of other consequences) are all very real, and translate into a cost.
Is your stance we should not have a diverse grid? Because that's the only point I've really made this whole time. The more methods we have to produce electricity and the more redundancy the better. Currently active nuclear plants produce the cheapest power. Building new is more expensive, sure. That doesn't mean we abandon the tech and soley focus on one solution.
That's such a wild misrepresentation of what I've been saying that anyone reading what you just said can only conclude that you're arguing in bad faith.
My only point through this conversation is the factual statement that nuclear is not a competitive option.
Saying that "nuclear is cheapest once it gets running" is so ridiculous that, again, it has to be made in bad faith, because you're intentionally glossing over the whole point: the MASSIVE cost of building it, the massive cost of decommissioning it, and the massive cost in case anything goes wrong.
There are heaps of solutions out there for a balanced grid. Nuclear has no place in it.
What does a balanced grid look like, for you? I'm not arguing in bad faith I'm giving my opinion. One that's based on the last decade of my career working as a mechanical engineer in the generation space. Are currently active plants viable or should they be shut down?