3 ms·

No, it isn't. It's a colossal example of both complacency at big engineering firms, and wider myopia about climate change. Nevertheless, the >30-year old nukes

No, it isn't. It's a colossal example of both complacency at big engineering firms, and wider myopia about climate change. Nevertheless, the >30-year old nukes still delivered what every single technology you have listed categorically failed to deliver. I have provided ample, repeated evidence of that. They failed and fossils came to the rescue. Repeatedly. Why should they get even half the subsidy nukes get (which is what they do get), when their output is simply useless. I've posted numbers. Please, you want to show me storage can be economically done, today, do so. Or admit you can't because it can't. We no longer have time for utopianism.

ncmncm 5y ago
Subsidizing renewables produces permanent reductions in costs, resulting in net public savings. Nukes have been subsidized forever, and costs have gone only upward.
- yodelshady 5y ago
  There's no savings if there's NO POWER. 150 MW currently.
pydry 5y ago
>Nevertheless, the >30-year old nukes still delivered what every single technology you have listed categorically failed to deliver. This is simply, provably false. They have delivered cheap and green electricity and weaned us off fossil fuels gradually. Theyre growing very very fast because theyre economic and a good investment. Nuclear is not because it is not. Throw $4 billion of subsidies at solar, wind and pumped storage and youll get more power when you need it than if you did the same for a nuclear power station.
- yodelshady 5y ago
  > They have delivered cheap and green electricity and weaned us off fossil fuels gradually. I'm sorry we're just living in fantasy land now. We're not weaned off fossils. Not even close. That's just a lie.
  - pydry 5y ago
    In the UK solar and wind went from < 5% to 30% in the last 7 years because it's cheap to build. Nuclear's growth has been zero because it's ridiculously expensive.
    - yodelshady 5y ago
      180 MW today.
      - pydry 5y ago
        https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ says 4.5 GW or 13% today.

ncmncm 5y ago

Subsidizing renewables produces permanent reductions in costs, resulting in net public savings. Nukes have been subsidized forever, and costs have gone only upward.

yodelshady 5y ago
There's no savings if there's NO POWER. 150 MW currently.

pydry 5y ago

>Nevertheless, the >30-year old nukes still delivered what every single technology you have listed categorically failed to deliver. This is simply, provably false. They have delivered cheap and green electricity and weaned us off fossil fuels gradually. Theyre growing very very fast because theyre economic and a good investment. Nuclear is not because it is not. Throw $4 billion of subsidies at solar, wind and pumped storage and youll get more power when you need it than if you did the same for a nuclear power station.

yodelshady 5y ago
> They have delivered cheap and green electricity and weaned us off fossil fuels gradually. I'm sorry we're just living in fantasy land now. We're not weaned off fossils. Not even close. That's just a lie.
- pydry 5y ago
  In the UK solar and wind went from < 5% to 30% in the last 7 years because it's cheap to build. Nuclear's growth has been zero because it's ridiculously expensive.
  - yodelshady 5y ago
    180 MW today.
    - pydry 5y ago
      https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ says 4.5 GW or 13% today.