2 ms·
> The intermittency argument you are giving is quite flawed. Solar and wind can go far past 20-30% and still be cheaper than new nuclear. I'll believe it when
by manfredo 7y ago
> The intermittency argument you are giving is quite flawed. Solar and wind can go far past 20-30% and still be cheaper than new nuclear.
I'll believe it when I see it. History so far has demonstrated otherwise. In the meantime, the French are laughing at all of us as they enjoy their cheap, carbon free energy with enough surplus to export 3 billion euros of it.
- pfdietz 7y agoHistory has demonstrated no such thing. The French are also not laughing, since their attempts to build new nuclear plants have gone disastrously wrong. Their nuclear construction industry is in a shambles, losing billions, and had to be bailed out by the government.
- manfredo 7y agoAnd yet, they're still paying well below average energy costs, and emitting a fraction of the carbon as other countries.
- pfdietz 7y agoWe don't actually know what their old nuclear plants cost to build. That information has been conveniently lost, and in any case was mixed up with their military nuclear program. But that's all water under the bridge. Their attempts NOW to build nuclear capacity have demonstrated that they cannot build nukes competitively. The facts on the ground trump what you think should be true.