this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
140 points (97.3% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17468 readers
484 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

For reference, the price for fixed-cost plans is around 10c/kWh.

As someone who’s been constantly running an electric heater in the garage while painting my car, I was quite lucky with the timing.

It’s not literally free, though. Transfer prices are fixed, and there are taxes and some other minor costs associated with it, so where I live, it still adds up to around 6c/kWh even when the price drops to zero. The cheap prices are due to an excess of wind power, but once the wind dies down, prices usually spike hard.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zergtoshi 9 points 1 month ago (9 children)

It's a great example to show electric energy based on wind, water, solar is the way to go - not only because it's more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels of any kind or nuclear, but it's economically better as well.
Thanks for sharing!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I have nothing against nuclear energy personally. I wish we'd build more of it. Currently about 2/5th is wind power, 2/5th nuclear and 1/5 hydro. When there's no wind and it's cold outside we see prices in the 30 - 70c/kWh which is insanely expensive. If we had huge storage capacity and much, much more wind turbines then maybe it could work.

[–] zergtoshi 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Compared to fossil fuels I tend to prefer nuclear as well, because even though mining uranium has quite some ecological impact including emitting carbon emissions, running a nuclear power plant doesn't have carbon emissions and that's important.
What worries me is that there are nuclear power plants around the world and despite the first nuclear power plant having been built 70 years ago, not a single ultimate disposal place for the radioactive waste has been found/created.
Having "cheap" electric energy for 3-4 generations and putting a burden on the next 40,000 generations just does sound like a bad deal to me.
Until we have more wind and hydro, keeping nuclear running might be a price we have to pay.
Not being able to dispose of some more (thousands of) tons of radioactive waste is making the problem only quantitatively worse and not qualitatively.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

not a single ultimate disposal place for the radioactive waste has been found/created.

Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository

Also something to keep in mind is that high level waste which is the spent fuel is only about 3 - 5% of the total radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. Majority of the waste has way lower levels of radiation and it's things like reactor parts and safety equipment.

[–] zergtoshi 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I stand corrected regarding ultimate disposal and apparently they are planning to use it in a clever way.
Thank you for letting me know!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Well it's also the first and only one of its kind so you weren't too far off.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)