5 ms·
Right, nuke costs have only ever increased. For reasons. Solar and wind costs have only ever decreased. For reasons.
by angiosperm 3y ago
Right, nuke costs have only ever increased. For reasons.
Solar and wind costs have only ever decreased. For reasons.
- juped 3y agoYou're not saying what you think you're saying with those facts.
- angiosperm 3y agoThe value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated more cheaply, of which in any case no plausible signs are evident.
- Georgelemental 3y agoNuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)
- angiosperm 3y agoI.e., with massive government subsidy, hidden behind opaque accounting. China has constructed more solar and wind generating capacity in the past year than its entire fleet of nukes will produce after they have finished building them. China is less interested in power production from their nukes than strategic isotopes.
- billytetrud 3y agoAre you blind? The only reason we have so much solar and wind is because of massive subsidies.
- angiosperm 3y agoSolar and wind are now much cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies. E.g. it is cheaper to build a new solar farm and switch over to it than to continue using an existing coal plant. The only reason massive subsidies for renewables continue is to accelerate build-out to address the looming climate catastrophe. We need to ramp up to building out a TW of new renewable capacity every year.
- zdragnar 3y agoSolar and wind are subsidized by everything else that puts electricity into the grid when the sky is dark or calm. They are a supplement to, not a straight replacement for, nuclear or gas or anything else. Factor in the cost of filling in the gaps, and solar and wind don't come out ahead.
- billytetrud 3y agoI'd like you to concede that your snarky comment about subsidies implies things that are incorrect. Nuclear is not subsidized and has never been widely subsidized. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
- natmaka 3y agoIn France this is false: nuclear always obtained heavily (albeit indirectly) subsidies: the R&D was public, it was built by a public monopoly using public money and money borrowed thanks to the state vouching for it... Financial effect of renewables in Europe: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
- billytetrud 3y agoNo one was talking about France. angiosperm snarkily implied that Nuclear only works if its subsidized. He's clearly wrong. The fact that France does subsidize it isn't relevant. Nuclear in the US is not subsidized and yet is massively more cost effective than fossil fuel power plants.
- cesarb 3y ago> Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. Wait, what? Other than solar (for obvious reasons), renewables can run 24/7/365, and that's extremely common; as an example, the Itaipu power plant has run continuously since 1984, and it only powered down once in 2009, when several of the transmission lines taking power from it failed at nearly the same time due to lightning.
- billytetrud 3y agoSolar doesn't. Wind doesn't. Hydro does (usually). You know he was talking about solar and wind. Why are you being a turd? Hydro is tapped, we can't build significantly more hydro in this world.