The final figure will be significantly higher. Asked if the figure was likely to exceed €10 billion, he said: “Yes, we are talking about such magnitude.”

You can’t take money with you, but we will leave an atmosphere behind

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why?

      Renewables are cheaper, faster to deliver and better over all for the environment. There’s every reason to believe this will just be a money sink that may not even see the light of day eventually.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Renewables are also intermittent and strongly tied to geography. Geography is especially limiting in much of Europe which isn’t particularly sunny, and where much of the low hanging fruit for wind, geothermal, and hydro has already been tapped.

        And even if you were able to keep building it, you will soon run into the storage problem which is still potentially more costly, especially when trying to provide baseline power for the whole year, where it’s buildout may have to be many times more expensive to save power for months than a baseline solution like nuclear which can provide steady power all the time.

        So, some mix of baseline solutions like nuclear and intermittent solutions like renewables will be needed to completely phase out coal, oil, and gas which provide our baseline power today.

      • crt0o@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why do you think renewables are better for the environment? Nuclear is very clean and produces next to no emissions. In comparison, solar panels have a production process which produces considerable emissions, once they fail (which is in around 25 - 30 yrs), they basically turn into toxic waste. Similar goes for wind turbines, but they also totally ruin the landscape, since roads have to be built in order to access and maintain them. Additionally they’re not viable everywhere and look ugly af.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        cheaper

        Cost, as in dollars, can no longer be a consideration if you actually care about the environment.

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ship has sailed on nuclear tech being worthwhile now if you haven’t already committed to it and are well underway. Instead, renewables offer a cheaper, safer and much faster return on investment while being ultimately better for the environment. It’ll take much more than what is offered by gen IV for that to change.