> Odd that somebody who is trying to school me on the realities of renewable energy Odd that someone who keeps reeating falsifiable untruths about nuclear coul

> Odd that somebody who is trying to school me on the realities of renewable energy Odd that someone who keeps reeating falsifiable untruths about nuclear couldn't be bothered to provide their sources even when repeatedly asked > https://energycentral.com/sites/default/files/styles/og_meta https://energycentral.com/sites/default/files/styles/og_meta... This is a graph with no context and no explanation. And of course it doesn't include things like the need to overbuild and projected costs of storage. > Meanwhile, Hinkley point C Meanwhile if you selectively look at a single nuclear plant built in conditions which the FUD you spread around has been the norm for the past three decades, sure. > $100 billion would be a bargain. Of course you continue to ignore everything from what I write but what makes your FUD look plausible and good. Of course it won't be 100 billion because there's literally no way you could build that many PHS (and not at that cost). You'd know that if you actually read the links I provided, and not cherry-picked whatever you want from my words. I have no interest to continue talking to someone who argues in bad faith. Adieu.