4 ms·
Costs on paper, cost in reality over time, and cost due to physical and manpower constraints vs cost due to government subsidies and regulation are not equivale
by didericis 4y ago
Costs on paper, cost in reality over time, and cost due to physical and manpower constraints vs cost due to government subsidies and regulation are not equivalent.
This claim that 10 million acres of solar panels is cheaper to build and maintain and actually put into use and store power from vs extremely high energy output nuclear plants with tiny footprints that can produce continuously reeks of extremely biased accounting.
- pfdietz 4y agoWe can look at actual costs in the real world to confirm what I just told you. This is not some conspiracy to defame your energy waifu.
- didericis 4y agoThe arrogance and presumption is the issue. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy at all. Frankly I don’t trust people who aggressively point to models and facts and figures and don’t actually engage with the WHY and the caveats and actually think about the risk of non correspondence between the figures and the real world. That does not mean you’re wrong, I simply don’t trust your hand wavy dismissive argument about it being cheaper. If I see a report that looks at the long term maintenance cost of an actually deployed modern solar farm, not hypothetical ones, and compares it to an actually deployed modern nuclear reactor, I’ll take that one. I have an affinity for whatever actually works, the main reason I think nuclear looks good is I trust basic physics and understand how much astronomically higher the energy density of nuclear power is in comparison to like everything else.
- ncmncm 4y agoThe economics of renewables are the simplest and most transparent ever seen in power generation.