4 ms·

> When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. I don't understand what you are smoking. The entire investment cos

> When you negotiate rates that are similar to what renewables get, the profits get obscene. I don't understand what you are smoking. The entire investment cost for renewables are similar in price for the electricity from a paid off nuclear plant. Excluding decommissioning, insurance and waste storage costs for the nuclear plant. Take Sweden, the lowest electricity costs in Europe and no subsidies for new built renewables on the books. Keeps building the equivalent to an EPR in wind power every 2 years. You truly must be a cult member to think nuclear power makes financial sense when the UK government is adding a ~ £7B subsidy to Sizewell C before the final investment decision to get the project started, because they can't find investors! > Evidence of the "cost plus" contract? Just Google the Regulated Asset Base. EDF is too weak to take any risk from Sizewell C on their books, thus it becomes a cost plus contract as the government takes the entire risk, because it has been wholly incapable of finding any investors. > In fact UK plans to quadruple nuclear power. Because there is no business case. Riiiight. You mean like they've been doing since the mid 2000s. I would suggest you dare click any of these links: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#Oldbury_B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station > Only when the renewables are massively subsidized. > And they don't deliver the same product: reliable, dispatchable electricity. The Swedish case points differently. They do deliver reliable electricity, maybe have a read? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... Nuclear power needs to come down in cost by 85% to be competitive with the renewable system. Both systems ensure a reliable grid. You truly sound like a cult member ignoring all facts contrary to your own made up beliefs.

mpweiher 2y ago
> I don't understand what you are smoking. Reality. You just keep producing lots of verbiage and simply no evidence for your claims. Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. Hydro is a different matter, that is reliable. Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Norway has hydro, doesn't need nuclear, though they are looking at SMRs for some remote communities. Iceland has plenty of hydro and geothermal they don't need nuclear. Alas, hydro is something you have or don't have. You can't build it out if you don't have the geography for it. The countries with the lucky geography use it to their advantage, though both Sweden and Finnland happily add nuclear to their hydro. The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  > Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example". Really, what are you smoking? > Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. You mean like the insane €70/MWh ARENH agreement for old paid off nuclear plants which is higher than German wholesale prices. Reality's bias against nuclear power keeps moving faster than even your talking points. > Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Yes with massive massive subsidies. The opposition has promised to block it on cost grounds when they get into power next time. > The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. > https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF... That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking. To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading. This is the source: What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666278721000234 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872... Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems. Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s. Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time. Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh compared to $82-102/MWh. It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros based on selectively chosen outdated data, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power. Lets end the discussion here. You clearly don't have any capability of critical thinking and keeps sprouting talking points without understanding what they mean in contrary to all real world evidence.

mpweiher 2y ago

> I don't understand what you are smoking. Reality. You just keep producing lots of verbiage and simply no evidence for your claims. Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. Hydro is a different matter, that is reliable. Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Norway has hydro, doesn't need nuclear, though they are looking at SMRs for some remote communities. Iceland has plenty of hydro and geothermal they don't need nuclear. Alas, hydro is something you have or don't have. You can't build it out if you don't have the geography for it. The countries with the lucky geography use it to their advantage, though both Sweden and Finnland happily add nuclear to their hydro. The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF...

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
> Intermittent renewables are subsidized everywhere. Nuclear power is not. And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example". Really, what are you smoking? > Electricity prices in countries with nuclear power are generally lower than electricity prices where intermittent renewables are used. You mean like the insane €70/MWh ARENH agreement for old paid off nuclear plants which is higher than German wholesale prices. Reality's bias against nuclear power keeps moving faster than even your talking points. > Sweden has both hydro and renewables and is planning on adding 10 nuclear plants. Yes with massive massive subsidies. The opposition has promised to block it on cost grounds when they get into power next time. > The just-published report from the US DOE shows that nuclear + renewables solutions are cheaper than renewables alone. which is why the US wants to add around 200 GW of nuclear capacity to their grid, tripling capacity. > https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOFF_DOE_AdvNuclear-vX7.pdf https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/LIFTOF... That entire report is an exercise in selectively choosing data to misrepresent renewables and present nuclear power in the best possible light and wishful thinking. To the degree that the prominent "renewables vs. nuclear" graph they keep repeating on the webpage and figure 6 in the report is straight up misleading. This is the source: What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666278721000234 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266627872... Utilizing storage costs from 2018 and then of course making the comparison against the model not incorporating any hydrogen derived zero carbon fuel to solve seasonal problems. Which is todays suggestion for solving the final 1-2% requiring seasonal storage in the late 2030s. Something akin to todays peaker plants financed on capacity because they run too little to be economical on their own, but zero carbon. Can be hydrogen or biofuel derived. We will know in 10 years time. Would they have chosen the ReBF model the difference between made up optimal nuclear power and 2018 renewables would be: $80-94/MWh compared to $82-102/MWh. It is essentially: Nukebros writes reports for nukebros based on selectively chosen outdated data, they confirm their own bias. Simply an attempt to justify another massive round of government subsidies on nuclear power. Lets end the discussion here. You clearly don't have any capability of critical thinking and keeps sprouting talking points without understanding what they mean in contrary to all real world evidence.