It’s still not earning you money to spend electricity because you still have to pay the transfer fee which is around 6 cents / kWh but it’s pretty damn cheap nevertheless, mostly because of the excess in wind energy.

Last winter because of a mistake it dropped down to negative 50 cents / kWh for few hours, averaging negative 20 cents for the entire day. People were literally earning money by spending electricity. Some were running electric heaters outside in the middle of the winter.

  • DrunkenPirate@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The toxic and deadly trash it makes. Deadly for centuries.

    In Germany we still search for an area to dig for ages. We search since 30 years.

    • a_robot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the mean time, you seem to be a big fan of burning coal instead, which only pollutes the atmosphere instead of easily storable material to be buried when we feel we have found a sufficient deep hole that no one is going to look in.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most nuclear waste issues are vastly over-exaggerated. Most of the nuclear waste is not long term waste. It’s not things like spent fuel rods, it’s things like safety equipment and gear. Those aren’t highly contaminated, and much of it can almost be thrown away in regular landfills. The middle range of materials are almost always kept on site through the entire life of the nuclear plant. Through the lifetime of the plant that material will naturally decay away and by the time the plant is decommissioned only a fraction will be left to handle storage for a while longer from the most recent years.

        Nuclear waste can be divided into four different types:

        1. Very low-level waste: Waste suitable for near-surface landfills, requiring lower containment and isolation.
        2. Low-level waste: Waste needing robust containment for up to a few hundred years, suitable for disposal in engineered near-surface facilities.
        3. Intermediate-level waste: Waste that requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near-surface disposal.
        4. High-level waste: Waste is disposed of in deep, stable geological formations, typically several hundred meters below the surface.

        Despite safety concerns, high-level radioactive waste constitutes less than 0.25% of total radioactive waste reported to the IAEA.
        These numbers are worldwide for the last 4 years:

        • a_robot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And yet, Germany prefers to pollute the atmosphere with the smoke of coal and other fossil rules, than to simply maintain the storage of nuclear waste until a hole can be found or created.

            • Mossy Feathers (They/Them)@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s been a while since I read about it, but iirc Chernobyl is suspected to have been sabotage because they turned all the safeties off and then basically walked away until it started melting down.

              Fukushima was doomed from the start. Iirc they were told not to build the plant there due to extreme earthquake and tsunami risk, but they did it anyway.

              Those two disasters were caused by stupidity and negligence. You can argue that humans can’t be trusted with radioactive materials, but the process itself is pretty safe. Meanwhile coal plants release significantly more radiation over their lifetimes than nuclear reactors do.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Your entire argument is a fallacy of saying it is either nuclear or coal, when in reality it is either renewables or coal+nuclear.

        It is the same companies that want to continue both coal and nuclear, because it requires similar components in the power plants and similar equipment for mining.

        Also the same government in Germany that expanded the nuclear power slashed the build up of renewables, resulting in the long time for coal in the first place.

        Stop being a fossil shill. If you shill for nuclear you shill for coal too.

        • Irremarkable@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Congrats you’ve fallen for oil company FUD from the 70s.

          In what world is nuclear + renewables not a possibility. Nobody here is wanting nuclear + coal. You sit here and bitch and whine about fallacies while your entire argument relies entirely on a strawman.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Many active reactors rely on old designs, we have new ones now that are far cleaner. Some even use existing waste as fuel, so we would be able to get rid of those old stock piles.

      Ofc the oil industry is fighting that tooth and nail since it doesn’t jive with their FUD campaign

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah and because those new designs are so great we see them installed all over the world. Except the projects take decades, skyrocket in costs and get delayed for decades on top.

        Advocating for nuclear power now is in the best interest of the oil lobby. And it is simply impossible to solve the urgent energy transition with it, even if all the miracles promised about it were true.