4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThen 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 agoNuclear 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.