3 ms·

These technologies aren’t exclusive. You need wind, solar, and nuclear for a carbon-free replacement for our grid. Nat gas is still one of the “cheapest” forms

These technologies aren’t exclusive. You need wind, solar, and nuclear for a carbon-free replacement for our grid. Nat gas is still one of the “cheapest” forms of energy, but you wouldn’t hold that against carbon-free alternatives right?

ajross 7y ago
And once more, that "and" is just an assertion on your part. It needs analysis to be true. Compare: "For a balanced diet, you need grains, fruits, and beluga caviar." That's insane, because you're not looking at the whole space of solutions. Again, find a balance sheet where someone tallies up cost per megawatt-hour of various technologies given existing tradeoffs. This stuff has been done. Nuclear doesn't even remotely come close, which is why the industry is trying to sneak around with legislation and steal government dollars that should be going to more effective solutions instead.
- thatcat 7y ago
  Look at the cost of energy in France where 75% of energy is produced from nuclear, it is 26% lower than the EU average. Everyone agrees it is much safer to pursue zero carbon solutions in the long term. If carbon emission goals are going to ever be met nuclear will be a big part of it because it is the only replacement to coal/gas that can fill the same role without restructuring infrastructure. Solar/wind do not fill the same role, their lower price reflects the uncertainty of production and can only reduce demand for nuclear to some.
  - ajross 7y ago
    I absolutely guarantee you that number you're showing is the cost to operate the reactors, not to build them. We're talking about building new reactors, not shutting any down.
    - thatcat 7y ago
      Oh I see. In that respect there is hope that mass produced small modular reactors would bring down mfg cost by increasing volume. I don't have numbers though.

3 ms·

These technologies aren’t exclusive. You need wind, solar, and nuclear for a carbon-free replacement for our grid. Nat gas is still one of the “cheapest” forms

by dev_dull 7y ago

ajross 7y ago
And once more, that "and" is just an assertion on your part. It needs analysis to be true. Compare: "For a balanced diet, you need grains, fruits, and beluga caviar." That's insane, because you're not looking at the whole space of solutions. Again, find a balance sheet where someone tallies up cost per megawatt-hour of various technologies given existing tradeoffs. This stuff has been done. Nuclear doesn't even remotely come close, which is why the industry is trying to sneak around with legislation and steal government dollars that should be going to more effective solutions instead.
- thatcat 7y ago
  Look at the cost of energy in France where 75% of energy is produced from nuclear, it is 26% lower than the EU average. Everyone agrees it is much safer to pursue zero carbon solutions in the long term. If carbon emission goals are going to ever be met nuclear will be a big part of it because it is the only replacement to coal/gas that can fill the same role without restructuring infrastructure. Solar/wind do not fill the same role, their lower price reflects the uncertainty of production and can only reduce demand for nuclear to some.
  - ajross 7y ago
    I absolutely guarantee you that number you're showing is the cost to operate the reactors, not to build them. We're talking about building new reactors, not shutting any down.
    - thatcat 7y ago
      Oh I see. In that respect there is hope that mass produced small modular reactors would bring down mfg cost by increasing volume. I don't have numbers though.