WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

Nuclear wins.

Nuclear wins.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt 1y

Yes. This chart doesn't take into account the longevity of the product, just how much material goes into the initial construction per watt of power generated.

[–] 1 pt 1y

Hydro is the only green energy on that list that can last more than 15 to 30 years (and that's optimistic hippy lying numbers).

[–] 0 pt 1y

Nuclear can do it also, provided it's not an old gen 2 design, or doesn't use caustic salts as the cooling medium

[–] 1 pt 1y

Nor does it cover costs.

A chart with cost per year per terrawatthour produced would probably have an even higher bar for solar and nuclear would likely not be visible at all.

[–] 0 pt 1y

Depends greatly on the gen of the nuclear plant. Gen 2's that only use 5% of fuel (Canadian designs not withstanding) have rather high costs due to fuel and downtime to refuel. Gen 3 is getting better, depending on the type. Gen 4, which normally use 80% or more of their fuel, would be dirt cheap to run.

[–] 0 pt 1y

I'd like to see such a chart.