Ok. Valid argument.
But while Germany quit nuclear power, the rest reinforced their standpoint.
Thousands of scientists from different countries all agreed upon nuclear power to be a reasonable source of energy. Even a Japan is still going forward with nuclear power. It is only Germany, which made an emotional choice, Merkel wanted to please the masses. And here we are now. Burning coal, as if we were thrown back into the industrial time, forced to use primitive methods to produce energy.
Yes nuclear power plants are very expensive. But the energy density is phenomenal.
Energetic armortisation is far quicker on a nuclear plant than on solar panels.
And the argument of subsidies is usually a fake one, since governments also pour millions into renewable energies.
Broken down to lifetime cost to the cost of comparable technologies, nuclear is still on the same level as solar and wind.
Since I am from Germany, and German sources might not be ideal to share, let me explain it this way: People are not stupid. They will never choose the financially unwise option, if the other one would seriously be the better one.
Let it run 5 months and the money is back in.
Because they are fatphobic.
I know people that had this happen to them. They got lucky.
Some people are disgusting.
It's cheap because it's subsidised. Car users don't pay all of the costs.
I already answered someone else about this topic. So I will mostly copy my comment:
“The subsidisation argument is one that occurs quite often. I can only speak about the situation in my country, Germany. Since every citizen is dependant on car infrastructure, due to their dependance on Trucks transporting goods into the supermarkets, Police service, Ambulances,… and especially they are in need for this infrastructure, because it is used to build the houses people live in and it is used to maintain these houses.
So everyone in my country is somewhat paying for car infrastructure, totally independent from their use of it for private transport, because they are indirectly in need of it. This is what is commonly called subsidisation for car infrastructure, because the use of the capital is often not directly declared by the government.
Now car owners, that drive, have to pay an additional automobile tax, because as it is with all cars, they slowly wear out the road and repairs need to be paid. Due to their additional use of the roads, they have to pay additional for damages and repairs. “
And it's popular because places are designed for it to be the most convenient option. When you design places that aren't for driving, people will use other modes.
Yes and no. In Germany we have many options, but cars are still an important and often chosen mode of transport. The infrastructure for other kind of transports exist. But they do not manage to compete with the flexibility of a car.
And I will paste another part of a comment to someone else:
“A modern city is welcoming to the new. This also includes scooters, bike sharing, car sharing, EV, and so on. And addressing the point of a stronger economy, I highly doubt that economic strength is dependant on 30 meters of rail, 10 Meters of Asphalt or whatever. “
You see, progress comes with cost. But car infrastructure is so popular, because it is relatively cheap. It’s an economic problem, that has proven that the current situation is the most effective we currently have.
And in the end, some people want to drive cars in cities. Even people that live in cities want to do so.
So as the systems continues to work as it does, one has to expect, that the majority thinks the way I do. And that’s what we usually call swarm intelligence.
Nobody is criticizing architecture of buildings, but there is no way "every street is a masterpiece of planning". The only reason it could ever be considered as good is because they managed to direct traffic at all with how many cars there are.
Roads must be heavily engineered, to carry heavy loads. They are true wonders of what engineering can do. And we cannot do without these roads. They are needed for the military, Police, Ambulance, Firefighters, Trucks transporting goods, and public transport in many other forms. Bike lanes are part of them as well.
They wouldn't have to spend so much money and expert civil engineering of roads if there weren't so many cars to deal with in the first place. Being so good at managing car traffic is not actually a positive. It's just a less worse negative.
Car infrastructure is still easier to maintain than rail. This is due to infrastructure costs. Road costs less than rail (rail also need additional infrastructure such as extremely expensive subway stations and tunnels. Quite unexpected to most people, this rail infrastructure is much harder to maintain. Water pumps for subway systems, air systems included, structural inspections, and rail above ground needs repeated checking as well. Especially high speed train rails are sensitive to temperatures. In the summer they can get too hot to maintain high speeds. They need to be replaced much more frequent than asphalt streets,… There are good reasons, why car infrastructure is preferred by city planners. The versatility is unmatched.
People in cities aren't going to be happy because of cars and road traffic management. If this claim is true at all it would be because people like being near people. There are social things to do where people gather. Personally, I am much happier on the outskirts of a city to get farther away from the chaos, but close enough to go there if I want.
people are happier in cities at least that’s what studies claim. I myself also prefer the countryside.
Ideally there would be no cars in a city other than emergency vehicles and anyone going to a city with a car has to park outside of it and then take public transport inside of it.
No. Individual transport cannot be given up. It is the latest step in mobility development. And the only way is the way forward. Backwards thinking is for the naive idealists.
The future are electric vehicles that can drive autonomously. All cars would be parked on big, strategically well placed, huge parking houses. Whenever someone needs a car, the car drives to the person that requested it and brings the person to its destination. That is the future we are eventually heading towards to. And nothing will stop it. Billions were already invested into this goal, Mercedes and Tesla leading the way in autonomous driving.
Those investments I’ve already paved the way and there is nothing we could even do to stop it.
Modern cities don’t suck. Many pieces of architecture is a new miracle of engeneering, almost every street is a masterpiece of planning and organisation, …
Furthermore studies claim that people in cities are much happier than on the country side. So maybe a bit complaining about car noise is not that mentionable.
Oh no. You misunderstood me. I am extremely bored with my studies. Hours in front of books is tiring. Most people around me are boring as well. Not the brightest unfortunately.
On twitter I am just reposting the most radical left stuff or radical right stuff I can find from different accounts. While I am not as big as hedge funds, I do like to compare myself to them. I consider myself a social hedge fund. I do my part in accelerating the development of political ideologies by leading people into believing there needs to be a more extreme opposition on each side.
And people online are so naive. I already got you on the hook, don’t I? Nah, I am just kidding. I am just a peaceful observer on twitter and other social media. :)
Nope. Just some dude who has found his own form of entertainment.
I’d rather have fun with something than getting angry about trivia.
What use does it have to you to get angry about a platform you do not seem to be involved with anymore?
Call me edgy and immature all you want. I am happy.
This is a German source that incorporates many studies and presents their results. Some agree with my statement, some with yours. But fact is, that the financial difference is very small.
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf
Page 23 for example suggests my statement.
On page 32 you can see the development that suggests that you are right.
But considering the costs for the expansion of the energy grid, battery storage systems, and the rising production costs of everything, I believe Nuclear to be the cheaper option and the far more reliable one.