6 ms·

"Far too expensive" in what context? For whom? Short-sighted profit-seeking, growth-oriented capitalism got us into this mess and it certainly won't get us out.

pfdietz 5y ago
Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives. For a long time, nuclear supporters just ignored the cost issue, since they felt they were the only real non-fossil alternative. Yes, they'd be expensive, but society had no choice. In the last decade this changed. Renewables are now far cheaper on a levelized basis, cheap enough that even with the cost of dealing with intermittency they are likely to come out cheaper than nuclear. This is why so much new capacity in the world (and in the US) is renewables. It's not because of green mind control, it's because of brute economics. Nuclear is in dire shape competitively, in comparison.
- HunOL 5y ago
  > Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives. But what are the costs of unstable supply and behavior of whole grid?
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Until we get to extremely high renewable penetration, that doesn't much matter. And at that point, the cost is still going to be cheaper than nuclear, most likely. You optimize with short and long term storage, demand dispatch, and transmission.
  - manicdee 5y ago
    What are the costs of monolithic production where taking one generator offline blacks out an entire state?
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Bingo. Prioritizing preservation of profits over preservation of the planet is exactly whats killing us.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Talking about capitalism is fun, but people still have to pay to keep their homes warm in the winter, and be paid to build and maintain these things.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  Well, talking about people wanting their home warm in winter, in a discussion about non-fossil power source is pretty ironic.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    What does that have to do with my point?

pfdietz 5y ago

Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives. For a long time, nuclear supporters just ignored the cost issue, since they felt they were the only real non-fossil alternative. Yes, they'd be expensive, but society had no choice. In the last decade this changed. Renewables are now far cheaper on a levelized basis, cheap enough that even with the cost of dealing with intermittency they are likely to come out cheaper than nuclear. This is why so much new capacity in the world (and in the US) is renewables. It's not because of green mind control, it's because of brute economics. Nuclear is in dire shape competitively, in comparison.

HunOL 5y ago
> Far too expensive compared to other non-fossil alternatives. But what are the costs of unstable supply and behavior of whole grid?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Until we get to extremely high renewable penetration, that doesn't much matter. And at that point, the cost is still going to be cheaper than nuclear, most likely. You optimize with short and long term storage, demand dispatch, and transmission.
- manicdee 5y ago
  What are the costs of monolithic production where taking one generator offline blacks out an entire state?

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

Bingo. Prioritizing preservation of profits over preservation of the planet is exactly whats killing us.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Talking about capitalism is fun, but people still have to pay to keep their homes warm in the winter, and be paid to build and maintain these things.

littlestymaar 5y ago
Well, talking about people wanting their home warm in winter, in a discussion about non-fossil power source is pretty ironic.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  What does that have to do with my point?