They do not pay for themselves ever if you include all the externalities which currently are conveniently paid for by society. Nuclear power is a taxpayer scam where profits are privatized and costs are socialized.

>You need to generate four times as much energy if you are going to store it

Renewables are much cheaper power generators. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.

So if you want to generate lots of energy for storage, you would be a fool to go for nuclear rather than renewables, even from a purely economical perspective.

And I rather have no electricity at all than nuclear power.

>we could be looking at fusion power as a more realistic near future option

Fusion is the exact opposite of that. It is highly speculative and can only become viable in the far future, if ever. Do not get fooled by the sensationalist headlines. There is a mountain of giant problems that need to be overcome before fusion can actually become commercial, and we have no idea if we can ever overcome these problems.

But we desparately need to act now, not wait for scifi tech to become reality. We cannot afford to waste money on this now. We should invest it into things are working to reduce CO2 RIGHT NOW.

Nuclear does hurt more than it helps, since its insane costs could be put into more cost-effective options.

It also cannot be used to compliment renewables because it cannot be used for dispatchable power generation. Thus it directly competes with renewables for every Dollar/Euro being spend on the energy sector.

People who are truly concerned about the climate catastrophy ought to oppose nuclear power in favor of renewables and storage.

lol you just mindlessly repeat the reddit nuclear shilling.

The Inkai Uranium project spans about 486km2 where a hole is drilled every 25-50m and millions of tonnes of sulfuric acid is poured into the ground. Other activity is exluded from an area in a 15km radius or around 1000km2 due to the ground water contamination. It devastates nature on a scale only comparable to coal mining. "bUt iT iS ToTaLly thE cLEaNeST enErgY eVEr!"

The EPR project in France. 15+y in the making, still not operating. The budget has exploded 3 times the original budget. The price per kWh will be between 2-3 times more of new solar PV. Not included of course are the insane costs of building the plants back and taking care of the nuclear waste for thousands of years. Nevermind that there literally is no business case for nuclear energy cause it is so freaking cost inefficient that the only way to make a profit with it is to make taxpayers pay for all the costs and externalities for you! "bUt iT iS tHe cHeApEsT enErgY eVEr!"

Then of course there are the catastrophic, landscape-destroying and ocean/groundwater-poisoning disasters we all know about that supposedly can only happen once every thousand years but already happened multiple times in my lifetime alone. Oh and nuclear waste that will be a safety hazard for THOUSANDS of years. "HERP DERP BUT IT IS ALSO THE SAFEST ENERGY!"

You people are cultists.

Yes Merkel was a lot better.

I wish it was a trillion and the money we invest into renewables sure as hell is a better investment than flushing it down the nuclear toilet.

Lower cost saves more carbon per dollar. Faster deployment saves more carbon per year. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated.

Not to mention that the costs of nuclear do not even include the giant costs that are yet to come when all the reactors have to be build back and the waste has to be cared for literally thousands of years.

Can we send the bill for those shitty plants to you then? Cause I do not want to see my taxes wasted on the most inefficient and costly form of energy. And I hope that you live for a few thousand years too so you can take care of the nuclear waste for us.

35yo German here. Worst government I ever witnessed. Even Schröder was not as incompetent/corrupt as these clowns and that is saying something. Of course the nuclear shills on reddit love this though.

The initial comment was about an article that speculates humans surviving the climate catastrophy. I reacted to this saying that I hope humans will be wiped out by it. That is all.

I cannot do anything to resolve the problem of human nature. There is no moral progress, only technological progress. Technological power outpaced human capacity to act responsibly, which remained on the same level it was when we were still inhabiting caves. As a result, living things are being burned and tortured alive in all the creative ways humans can devise. It would be poetic justice if humans ended up burning themselves to ashes as well, thus ending their brutal reign and allowing nature to renew itself.

>How is it unearned and how would it be earned?

The use of scientific power doesn't require the same discipline that is needed to first attain it. Intellectual rigor and reason is used to initially unlock the power, but once the key has been found any witless brute has access to it. The result is the corruption of practical reason which thinkers such as Horkheimer have pointed out; reason is merely being used as a means to an end. This purely instrumental use of reason ignores all obligations and duties that arise when the same capacity to reason is applied to judging ourselves. Despite being capable, the human mind hates to reflect on itself and can't bear to submit itself to rational scrutiny.

Reason is like a benevolent goddess who blessed some degenerate mud dweller with all kinds of amazing wonders but instead of holding her in veneration, the ingrate turned her into his harlot. To me, that makes the human animal the lowest of all animals.

>I mean what do you want me to say to address your “argument”?

If you got something to say about the issue, do so. If not, then do not. You may remain silent for all I care. But do not give me that ad hominem shit. I am so tired of it. It is fucking everywhere. Nobody talks about the actual issues anymore, but rather just go after who is saying it; or by extension who these people can be associated with etc.

Who says something is irrelevant for the truth of the statement. A rapist saying that rape is bad does not make it good just cause he is a hypocrite.

>If our actions cause us to go extinct, then why does it matter?

There are other sentient beings we torture and kill. I am convinced that the overall amount of suffering on the earth could be greatly reduced if humans disappeared.

However, I am not a Utilitarian. I view human behavior, most notably our irresponsible use of unearned knowledge, to be inherently evil and thus deserving of retribution.

>And since that is obviously never going to happen

Climate change could potentially lead to conditions that make humans go extinct.

If my death caused all other humans to die, then you are right that my position would imply killing myself. Since it does not, your argument is just a non sequitur.

But for the sake of argument, lets pretend that my death actually would cause all other humans to die and that, therefore, I would be a hypocrite for not killing myself. Guess what? That still would be irrelevant for the truth of what I am saying. Suggesting otherwise is a Tu Quoque fallacy which in turn is just a special case of ad hominem which in turn is "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

So yeah, "hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!" is all this boils down to again.

yeah good job not engaging me.

"hey lets talk about you rather than the issue!"

humans turned the vast majority of the planet into torture chambers. even a global nuclear war would be more compassionate than allowing humans to continue this shit.

> but humanity will live on in a recognizable sense

This is what I fear the most. This cursed species at least needs to be wiped out for the horrible shit it does.

Right, but demand is also an issue. The state using the money to reduce debt will result in less demand than giving money to everybody.

I am not against support from the government by the way. It just frustrates me how undifferentiated this support is. Here in Germany, literally every citizen gets this inflation support, including freaking millionaires.

Spending the money means higher debt. Inflation is fought with higher interest. You think it is a good idea to have high debt when interest is rising?

And when the government gives the average Joe more money, then this will make inflation worse in our current situation. The current inflation is a result of there being high demand, lots of money but not enough production/transport to meet the demand. If the people had less money, they would buy less. Thus demand would shrink and inflation would be reduced. But with more money, people will want to buy even more shit.

Spending money to fight inflation...

Same nonsense in Germany.

How about only supporting the people who actually need support? Nah just spend hundreds of billions, thus making inflation even worse.