• CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Nuclear is more expensive than the others only if the others get subsidies but Nuclear doesn’t.

    That is straight up wrong, the opposite is true. England’s Hinkley Point C for example has a Contract for Difference, the british government pays a guaranteed price per kWh so their citizens pay less.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s almost like a for-profit utilities company will… go for profit.

      Really bad example.

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s completely beside the point. You said, renewables were only cheaper because they’re subsidized. I proved you wrong and showed that nuclear is subsidized. That has nothing to do with companies being for-profit.

        • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Even if the government subsidizes it, the company selling it is already for profit selling it at a higher price point. The government can only subsidize so much.