4 ms·

If you can accurately calculate the vast implications of the price of energy, I might listen to you. There are things where the price doesn't say a lot of thing

by jokoon 7y ago

If you can accurately calculate the vast implications of the price of energy, I might listen to you. There are things where the price doesn't say a lot of things. It's true for energy since it's a very long term investment, which also has implications on infrastructure. Generally it's pretty complicated to evaluate the public interest, and I don't think you can put a price tag on public interest. It doesn't change the fact that nuclear is always better. It's just that private funding doesn't like it because it's a very long term investment.

pfdietz 7y ago
If we can't determine the implications, then what do you suggest we do? Make decisions by examining goat entrails? I understand why nuclear fans want to say cost doesn't matter. If cost matters, nuclear sucks. I understand how jarring this new reality (that nuclear has been priced out of the market vs. other CO2-free alternatives) is. Nuclear fans are still in denial about it, but declaring the falsehood "nuclear is always better" doesn't change that reality.
- jokoon 7y ago
  Again, renewables are not baseload, meaning it's not on-demand energy, meaning renewables will emit co2 because their require coal or gaz to supplement them. Storing electricity is also pretty damn difficult, and it adds more costs. I had this argument several times. Can you power electrical trains with renewables? No, because you can't decide when to have wind or sun. Concerning costs, this consultants made difference estimation and even when he favors renewables, they are still 2 times more expensive that nuclear. Even someone who worked with the Obama administration for renewables realized nuclear was better.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Baseload isn't on demand energy either. It's "take it or leave it" energy. Baseload USED TO BE the cheaper per kWh, so grids were designed to have baseload + dispatchable sources to fill in the rest. But renewables have rendered this design obsolete. Now, the cheaper sources are not baseload, but intermittent. The optimal grid design is become one of using intermittent sources, then filling in around those with some combination of storage and dispatchable supplies. Expensive baseload has no place anymore in this situation. Your claim that renewables are 2x the cost of nuclear is an easily checked falsehood. The levelized cost of energy from renewables is 3-4x less than new nuclear plants.
    - jokoon 7y ago
      Again, intermittent power source are not really useful because there are times when you need power and times when you don't, and nobody decides when there's sun or wind, not to mention seasons. Essentially, it means renewables = coal+gas. Not so good for low emissions.

by jokoon 7y ago

pfdietz 7y ago

If we can't determine the implications, then what do you suggest we do? Make decisions by examining goat entrails? I understand why nuclear fans want to say cost doesn't matter. If cost matters, nuclear sucks. I understand how jarring this new reality (that nuclear has been priced out of the market vs. other CO2-free alternatives) is. Nuclear fans are still in denial about it, but declaring the falsehood "nuclear is always better" doesn't change that reality.

jokoon 7y ago
Again, renewables are not baseload, meaning it's not on-demand energy, meaning renewables will emit co2 because their require coal or gaz to supplement them. Storing electricity is also pretty damn difficult, and it adds more costs. I had this argument several times. Can you power electrical trains with renewables? No, because you can't decide when to have wind or sun. Concerning costs, this consultants made difference estimation and even when he favors renewables, they are still 2 times more expensive that nuclear. Even someone who worked with the Obama administration for renewables realized nuclear was better.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Baseload isn't on demand energy either. It's "take it or leave it" energy. Baseload USED TO BE the cheaper per kWh, so grids were designed to have baseload + dispatchable sources to fill in the rest. But renewables have rendered this design obsolete. Now, the cheaper sources are not baseload, but intermittent. The optimal grid design is become one of using intermittent sources, then filling in around those with some combination of storage and dispatchable supplies. Expensive baseload has no place anymore in this situation. Your claim that renewables are 2x the cost of nuclear is an easily checked falsehood. The levelized cost of energy from renewables is 3-4x less than new nuclear plants.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    Again, intermittent power source are not really useful because there are times when you need power and times when you don't, and nobody decides when there's sun or wind, not to mention seasons. Essentially, it means renewables = coal+gas. Not so good for low emissions.