4 ms·

The competition is not just coal and gas but also solar / wind. Solar and wind is the cheapest energy. Then gas, then coal then nuclear. Yes, we should (and w

by kjksf 5y ago

The competition is not just coal and gas but also solar / wind. Solar and wind is the cheapest energy. Then gas, then coal then nuclear. Yes, we should (and will, the trend makes it inevitable) replace coal and gas with solar and wind. We should also replace the most expensive (nuclear) energy with cheap and clean solar and wind. We're not grading on a curve here. It doesn't matter WHY nuclear is most expensive energy, it matters that it is and we have technology that is both cheaper and cleaner to replace it.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>It doesn't matter WHY nuclear is most expensive energy, it matters that it is and we have technology that is both cheaper and cleaner to replace it. That is a absurd thing to say. If the reason is "because we intentionally made it that way" then of course it matters because we can address that reason with the (nearly free) stroke of a pen.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Corruption turns out to be quite hard to root out, particularly when it has been made wholly legal. Certainly, it takes more than a pen stroke. And you won't bring down nuke cost without cutting out the corruption. And, even if you did, it would remain uncompetitive with the storage that will have been long since built out by the time you could bring one online.
zdragnar 5y ago
Solar and wind are only the cheapest because we have dumped massive amounts of subsidies into them, and continue to do so at greater levels than nuclear. No matter how much money we throw at them, though, they produce zero when the sun isnt shining or the wind isnt blowing. Factor in the cost of batteries, and aside from a few exceptional locations, they aren't all that cheap anymore.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  That doesn't explain why so much solar and wind are being installed elsewhere. Did you think we're subsidizing them globally? Factor in the cost of batteries and longer term storage and they're still going to be cheaper than new nuclear power plants.
sofixa 5y ago
Unless grid scale storage is free, which it isn't ( and more to the point, it isn't technically possible with what we currently have), your equation is off.

by kjksf 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>It doesn't matter WHY nuclear is most expensive energy, it matters that it is and we have technology that is both cheaper and cleaner to replace it. That is a absurd thing to say. If the reason is "because we intentionally made it that way" then of course it matters because we can address that reason with the (nearly free) stroke of a pen.

ncmncm 5y ago
Corruption turns out to be quite hard to root out, particularly when it has been made wholly legal. Certainly, it takes more than a pen stroke. And you won't bring down nuke cost without cutting out the corruption. And, even if you did, it would remain uncompetitive with the storage that will have been long since built out by the time you could bring one online.

zdragnar 5y ago

Solar and wind are only the cheapest because we have dumped massive amounts of subsidies into them, and continue to do so at greater levels than nuclear. No matter how much money we throw at them, though, they produce zero when the sun isnt shining or the wind isnt blowing. Factor in the cost of batteries, and aside from a few exceptional locations, they aren't all that cheap anymore.

pfdietz 5y ago
That doesn't explain why so much solar and wind are being installed elsewhere. Did you think we're subsidizing them globally? Factor in the cost of batteries and longer term storage and they're still going to be cheaper than new nuclear power plants.

sofixa 5y ago

Unless grid scale storage is free, which it isn't ( and more to the point, it isn't technically possible with what we currently have), your equation is off.