3 ms·
All my numbers above are including load factors... And I never said nuclear projects don't exist, only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to w
by hef19898 3y ago
All my numbers above are including load factors... And I never said nuclear projects don't exist, only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to wind and solar. And that those historical numbers show us that the investment money is mainly going into wind and solar instead of nuclear, and did for years now.
You could accept these facts as reality, which would make this whole discussion a lot less frustrating... Or at least engage with the numbers, which you didn't neither...
- mpweiher 3y ago> All my numbers above are including load factors... Nope. >>> Excluding load factors we have 440 GW of wind and solar vs. 8.3 GW > I never said nuclear projects don't exist Yes you did. >>> I've heard rumors that you can do both at the same time. >> I heard facts that people don't so. > only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to wind and solar. Nope, see above. But they are also not negligible. > ...and did for years now. And I've told you a number of times now that the historical under-investment in nuclear the last few decades or so is a well-known fact that in no way contradicts the fact that policy has now changed. Linearly projecting a past trend into the future is ... unwise. Particularly if there has been a major policy shift. Which there has. Arguing that the policy shift that just happened hasn't happened because it had no effect in the past is even less wise.