5 ms·

Ditch Nuclear and Save $860M with Grid Flexibility, U.K. Told

10 points by 8bitsrule 6y ago

boomboomsubban 6y ago
This is a fairly blatant advertisement from Wärtsilä. It clearly states that their goal was to find renewables to be the best option, minimizes the continued reliance on fossil fuels in their plan, and fudges the cost by assuming everything has the same 20 year lifetime.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  That is about the same (or better) level of scruples as nuke advocates invariably exercise. In some places it is the only way to get a fair hearing. The US federal govt just granted $1.4B to an Oregon company to build nukes for a site in Idaho. That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >In some places it is the only way to get a fair hearing. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts ensures this isn't a fair hearing. Sure the nuclear industry is guilty of it as well, but we still should be skeptical of any "report" that claims the best plan is the one that will make their company millions of dollars. >That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately. Or it could build a nuclear plant that would generate more energy overall.
    - andyv 6y ago
      It would work at night, too.
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      Intentionally misrepresenting the facts is universally observed behavior in all promotion of fission power, as seen even here. No nuke plant has been built for $1.4B. So, no, that would be just a down payment for a plant that might produce power at great additional cost a decade or more later, if not abandoned first. Solar could begin producing power immediately, during build-out. And at night, from stored energy. We have decades of actual records on the actual performance of fission power. It stinks. It has been a massive publicly subsidized boondoggle for 70 years. Too much is enough.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. That was not me misrepresenting anything. I'm always perplexed by the people that claim it is clear that nuclear power is a lost cause. If the evidence is so strong that renewables are the best economic choice, why is this company making up shit to draw people away from nuclear? Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price?
        ncmncm 6y ago
        > I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. (No comment.) > Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price? Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN? This "because the other side lies we need to too" excuse is nonsense. If nuclear power is a "massive publicly subsidized boondoggle" then you should be able to show a clear advantage without resorting to deception.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        In some circumstances, the facts and truth carry no weight, and outcomes depend on who promises more. Such circumstances are reliably identified anywhere retail fission power got built.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You keep saying things like the deception of the nuclear industry can be "reliably identified" yet you seem unable to provide any support for these claims. You then willingly turn a blind eye to the deception of the renewables industry, and your only attempt to defend this practice is to throw more mud at the nuclear industry. I just can not understand this position.

10 points by 8bitsrule 6y ago

This is a fairly blatant advertisement from Wärtsilä. It clearly states that their goal was to find renewables to be the best option, minimizes the continued reliance on fossil fuels in their plan, and fudges the cost by assuming everything has the same 20 year lifetime.

ncmncm 6y ago
That is about the same (or better) level of scruples as nuke advocates invariably exercise. In some places it is the only way to get a fair hearing. The US federal govt just granted $1.4B to an Oregon company to build nukes for a site in Idaho. That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >In some places it is the only way to get a fair hearing. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts ensures this isn't a fair hearing. Sure the nuclear industry is guilty of it as well, but we still should be skeptical of any "report" that claims the best plan is the one that will make their company millions of dollars. >That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately. Or it could build a nuclear plant that would generate more energy overall.
  - andyv 6y ago
    It would work at night, too.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Intentionally misrepresenting the facts is universally observed behavior in all promotion of fission power, as seen even here. No nuke plant has been built for $1.4B. So, no, that would be just a down payment for a plant that might produce power at great additional cost a decade or more later, if not abandoned first. Solar could begin producing power immediately, during build-out. And at night, from stored energy. We have decades of actual records on the actual performance of fission power. It stinks. It has been a massive publicly subsidized boondoggle for 70 years. Too much is enough.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. That was not me misrepresenting anything. I'm always perplexed by the people that claim it is clear that nuclear power is a lost cause. If the evidence is so strong that renewables are the best economic choice, why is this company making up shit to draw people away from nuclear? Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price?
      - ncmncm 6y ago
        > I did not think it was necessary to clarify that the amount of money you brought up would not build an entire nuclear power plant. (No comment.) > Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price? Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN?
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN? This "because the other side lies we need to too" excuse is nonsense. If nuclear power is a "massive publicly subsidized boondoggle" then you should be able to show a clear advantage without resorting to deception.
        ncmncm 6y ago
        In some circumstances, the facts and truth carry no weight, and outcomes depend on who promises more. Such circumstances are reliably identified anywhere retail fission power got built.
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        You keep saying things like the deception of the nuclear industry can be "reliably identified" yet you seem unable to provide any support for these claims. You then willingly turn a blind eye to the deception of the renewables industry, and your only attempt to defend this practice is to throw more mud at the nuclear industry. I just can not understand this position.