[throwaway10122]

Germany spent something like a trillion euro on renewables and still produces much more CO2 per capita per year than France who spent 200 billion on nuclear (and whose nuclear industry is forced to bail out competitors now)

One would think "green" movements (greenpeace, and modern green parties) have been infiltrated by coal/oil/gas lobbies as so far the only winner out of no nuclear yes wind policy is Vladimir Putin and not the environment

[raphaelj]

Past spending are actually not relevant, as renewable got significantly cheaper, while nuclear got more expensive.

Solar is today 5x less expensive than it was in 2010[1].

---

[1] https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...

[bryanlarsen]

And a large part of why it's cheaper is because Germany spent so much, driving the costs down the production learning curve. The whole world, including Germany, will benefit tremendously from that spending.

[cedricgle]

I am perplex. Solar energy for example don't take into account the cost of renewal of the panel (every 20-30 year) and the cost of recycling / storing the toxic photovoltaic liquid [1]. The IRENA projects[2] they can fully recycle this toxic waste and recreate value from it, which is bold imo.

[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-d...

[2] https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-mana...

[modo_mario]

Much of the reason nuclear got more expensive is that there's been such a big dip in construction. Lessons are having to be relearned and we're paying for it. That and so many politicians and contractors getting away with being leeches whilst dragging out projects in some countries. Comparisons of construction projects of the same design in china vs europe would make one cry.

Also much of the price reduction for renewables are in things like solar which has other issues like it's shorter lifespan paired with it's recycling being basically a joke/scam.

Additionally if you throw a solar panel or windmill in the trash before it's proper and well done the cost of it's energy in the calculation goes up just the same.

[pfdietz]

Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use. The doubling time of the exponential growth of solar has been much less than the lifespan of PV modules.

The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar. In an environment where technology is changing rapidly, long lifespan has little value. Would you think it's a huge negative if your PC fails after 20 years instead of 40? No, because you replace it before then anyway. Pretending that nuclear is better because its value is computed based on a 40 year lifespan is just pretending that its competitors will stop improving (otherwise, the nuclear plant won't even make it to 40 years due to operating costs > full cost of renewables.)

[modo_mario]

>Solar recycling is still rudimentary because the vast majority of PV modules that have ever been produced are still in use.

The problems with it's recycling are a bit more inherent than that.

>The shorter lifespan of PV is actually a good thing for solar.

It's downright silly to say that PV degrading is good for it. The improvements don't stop because they have to be replaced quicker. More people would adopt it if they lasted longer since the ROI is higher, etc I might replace my pc in less than a decade but I'm not jumping to get on a roof again and invest 10's of thousands of euros.

[pfdietz]

It's good because it means there's another cost decline for PV that will occur even after the manufacturing cost per watt stops declining: simply make the modules last longer. Nuclear has already shot its wad on that one.

It also means PV is less at risk right now from obsolesence. The shorter the time span needed to justify a PV installation, the less motivation there is to delay and wait for better technology.

[modo_mario]

>Nuclear has already shot its wad on that one.

Given that it still ends up the best from a cost perspective (solar doesn't come close) if extended marginally i wouldn't say so.

There is one core difference. Those extensions, investments and even proper use need political will given the size and scope of such projects. Those politicianse are subject to stupidity and lobbying. Hell the US bans fuel rod recycling at the behest of oil and gas companies to give one such example.

[thrown_22]

Coal is free underground which is in the same league as saying that solar is cheep at noon.

That something this simple is never talked about when it comes to renewables is a monument to peoples ability to ignore the obvious.

[dang]

You've been posting comments that get flagged, then deleting and reposting them many times—in one case, over a dozen times! That's abusive, and we ban accounts that do that sort of thing, so if you'd please stop doing it, we'd appreciate it.

Also, if you could please stop posting flamewar comments in the first place, that would be good, because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[thrown_22]

I'd say some going over my account flagging everything they see is abusive. But each to their own.

[dang]

That depends on whether your comments were correctly flagged or not.

[steeve]

Rain water will always be cheaper than tap water.

[throwawayffffas]

From my point of view, it's not about a competition between nuclear and solar/wind/etc.

It's about the choices that led to shutting down nuclear instead of coal, oil and the green-lighting of gas projects.

If we were serious about our co2 predicament the conservation and refurbishment of nuclear capacity would be as high as a priority as taking fossil fuel plants offline.

And then after electricity production related emissions has dropped to virtually zero we could have a great discussion on how to go forward.

[willis936]

Not modern. Greenpeace was founded 50 years ago with an anti-nuclear agenda. They call themselves "green" because a wolf wouldn't dress up as a wolf, but rather a sheep.

[gmm1990]

Pretty sure they started out being opposed to live nuclear weapons testing. Not sure what there exact position is currently, but calling them wolves seems unfair.

[willis936]

I disagree. Their influence on policy has directly benefitted the fossil fuel industry and worsened the climate crisis. History will remember them for what they are.

[usrbinbash]

Sadly that won't change as long as the red herring "BUT CHERNOBYL BLEW UP!" still works in public opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

[fsflover]

> One would think "green" movements (greenpeace, and modern green parties) have been infiltrated by coal/oil/gas lobbies

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30162474