this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
1250 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

14245 readers
2782 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Okay but since you're the one trying to make a point by saying that, it's really up to you to add the cost and show that the results really do make the point you want to make.

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

its a post about uranium being at the top, so the message should be about primary energy generation (unlike sugar -nutritional energy, which is also in the pic)

Cost per gigawatt of installed capacity: Nuclear power: 7–10 billion euros per GW.
While Wind energy (onshore): 1–2 billion euros per GW. Wind energy (offshore): 2–4 billion euros per GW. Solar energy: 500 million to 1 billion euros per GW.

This is evident if you just look at the nuclear power companies like france (who is heavily into nuclear): State-owned EDF - 70 billion euro debt. These companies can't stay afloat because its that unlucrative and therefore need heavy subsidies.

Then you have environmental cost, which is the funny part, because we cant even evaluate the potential of the damage since we dont understand the effects fully. The scale in the cartoon is literally comedic compared to the half-life of nuclear waste. like 24000 years for plutonium and for uranium over billions

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's a post about logarithmic scales LOL.

[–] arakhis_@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

which by adding cost a linear scale would maybe make it fit

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It's also a post saying that there's a point to be made using the lack of a logarithmic scale, which is what this guy's pushing against.