2 ms·

A cost based on high yield mines that are almost empty and 8 year old PV tech that hasn't been used in any new project since 2017 is worthless. As is comparing

A cost based on high yield mines that are almost empty and 8 year old PV tech that hasn't been used in any new project since 2017 is worthless. As is comparing electricity that costs $100/MWh after publicly guaranteed loans and after the public takes on any accident liability in excess of the cost of a quarter of one reactor to unsubsidized electricity actually sold for $15/MWh Oh look. The more up to date version of that report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter_06.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... Which doesn't include mining from ores that are 1/10th concentration that would be required to expand nuclear enough to solve the problem. But it does show you intentionally picking out of date information to lie about LCOE. When proponents of the nuclear consistently lie about everything, it makes it very hard to believe the industry hasn't done things like forge the paperwork on essential safety parts. Luckily people like you are most likely just lying to prolong the transition from fossil fuels, and aren't part of the industry.

Kuinox 4y ago
You need a backup a little your claims if you deny IPCC numbers, IPCC is considered very serious, and I said to another commenter, I have way more trust in IPCC numbers and planning than random internet commenters. You are saying "with CO2 taxes it will be profitable" The thing is, nuclear don't need CO2 taxes to be profitable, and is low carbon, if your solution was that cheap and safe, it would be more invested than nuclear is.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Then use the 2022 IPCC numbers I linked rather than the 2018 ones. > You are saying "with CO2 taxes it will be profitable" Nowhere did I say this. There are entirely private PV installations that sell their energy for under $15/MWh, less than a tenth of recent nuclear plants like Vogtle even including massive subsidy
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Nuclear absolutely does need CO2 taxes to be profitable in the US vs. fossil fuels. Quite large ones, considerably larger than the "cost of carbon" in the IRA, otherwise fracked gas and combined cycle power plants blow it out of the water. A CC power plant costs maybe $1/W; a nuclear plant costs 10x that. With cheap gas and no CO2 charges nuclear doesn't have a prayer of a chance to compete with that. This is why the so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the US collapsed even before renewables got cheap.

Kuinox 4y ago

You need a backup a little your claims if you deny IPCC numbers, IPCC is considered very serious, and I said to another commenter, I have way more trust in IPCC numbers and planning than random internet commenters. You are saying "with CO2 taxes it will be profitable" The thing is, nuclear don't need CO2 taxes to be profitable, and is low carbon, if your solution was that cheap and safe, it would be more invested than nuclear is.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Then use the 2022 IPCC numbers I linked rather than the 2018 ones. > You are saying "with CO2 taxes it will be profitable" Nowhere did I say this. There are entirely private PV installations that sell their energy for under $15/MWh, less than a tenth of recent nuclear plants like Vogtle even including massive subsidy
pfdietz 4y ago
Nuclear absolutely does need CO2 taxes to be profitable in the US vs. fossil fuels. Quite large ones, considerably larger than the "cost of carbon" in the IRA, otherwise fracked gas and combined cycle power plants blow it out of the water. A CC power plant costs maybe $1/W; a nuclear plant costs 10x that. With cheap gas and no CO2 charges nuclear doesn't have a prayer of a chance to compete with that. This is why the so-called "nuclear renaissance" in the US collapsed even before renewables got cheap.