4 ms·

> 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

> 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
> And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example". Where did I point to HPC as a "good example"? Nowhere, that's where. It is the worst example, currently, of a nuclear construction project gone awry, and last I checked will be the most expensive pair of nuclear reactors in history, by a good margin. And even that will be ridiculously profitable given the negotiated price, which is the same price that various UK off-shore wind projects are getting. Except that HPC power will be reliable. And there will be lots of it. And the plants will last for a very long time. Just like Georgia Power had to increase their electricity prices to pay for the disastrous Vogtle-3/4 projects. To less than half the price of electricity in California, the US's intermittent renewables poster-boy. Fun fact: the worst of nuclear power is better than the best of intermittent renewables. > 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. Aka: Reality™ But you are right, discussing actual reality with you is pointless. Have a good one.
- atomic128 2y ago
  Bravo!
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Thank you for confirming that investing in modern nuclear power leads to vastly higher power bills for the ratepayers. Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today. Both systems need about equal amounts of dispatchable power to follow the load curve. For nuclear power this comes from that overbuilding nuclear to solve peaking issues is even more horrifically expensive. Thus the need for storage. Or pumped hydro which was first invented to manage coal and nuclear inflexibility. Reality keeps moving faster than your nukebro talking points. Hopefully you’ll wake up from this madness one day.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > Thank you for confirming that investing in modern nuclear power leads to vastly higher power bills for the ratepayers. I didn't and it does not. French power bills are much lower than German ones. As are Swedish and Finnish ones. Georgia power bills (Vogtle-3/4) are half of California's (PV/wind-meister). Before 2002 (the German Atomausstieg), electricity rates were steadily falling compared to purchasing power. After 2002, they have been steadily rising. In Europe, electricity prices correlate in pretty much a straight line with the penetration of intermittent renewables in the country's electrical grid. The higher the percentage, the higher the prices. > Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today. That is about as counterfactual as you can be. Nuclear is cheaper than intermittent renewables on any metric you can find. And that's even before you notice that intermittent renewables don't actually provide power when you need it. The world has left the renewbro dreams behind and is turning to nuclear: - COP28: worldwide tripling of nuclear - UK: quadrupling of nuclear - US: tripling nuclear - Japan + South Korea: were going to abandon nuclear, now expanding instead - Poland: getting into nuclear, in a big way. - Holland: 4 new reactors instead of the originally planned 2 - Sweden: were also going to reduce / discontinue, now want at least 10 new reactors - France: had a law on the books that disallowed the expansion of nuclear capacity in absolute terms and mandated reduction to below 50%. This law was scrapped in March 2023 (>70% majority), now on track to build 14 EPR2 reactors - China: were on track to triple capacity, now accelerating. - India: on track to triple capacity by 2031 - Ukraine: building 4 new AP-1000 - Italy: got out of nuclear late 80s early 90s, now getting back into nuclear - Microsoft, Google, Amazon: all investing heavily in nuclear - Major banks just announced support for nuclear - IPCC calls nuclear essential for tackling climate change - So does the EU, the US government, etc. - Czech repubic: just ordered a South Korean APR-1400 etc.

mpweiher 2y ago

> And then you go and point to Hinkley Point C with a ridiculously subsidized CFD as a "good example". Where did I point to HPC as a "good example"? Nowhere, that's where. It is the worst example, currently, of a nuclear construction project gone awry, and last I checked will be the most expensive pair of nuclear reactors in history, by a good margin. And even that will be ridiculously profitable given the negotiated price, which is the same price that various UK off-shore wind projects are getting. Except that HPC power will be reliable. And there will be lots of it. And the plants will last for a very long time. Just like Georgia Power had to increase their electricity prices to pay for the disastrous Vogtle-3/4 projects. To less than half the price of electricity in California, the US's intermittent renewables poster-boy. Fun fact: the worst of nuclear power is better than the best of intermittent renewables. > 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. Aka: Reality™ But you are right, discussing actual reality with you is pointless. Have a good one.

atomic128 2y ago
Bravo!
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Thank you for confirming that investing in modern nuclear power leads to vastly higher power bills for the ratepayers. Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today. Both systems need about equal amounts of dispatchable power to follow the load curve. For nuclear power this comes from that overbuilding nuclear to solve peaking issues is even more horrifically expensive. Thus the need for storage. Or pumped hydro which was first invented to manage coal and nuclear inflexibility. Reality keeps moving faster than your nukebro talking points. Hopefully you’ll wake up from this madness one day.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > Thank you for confirming that investing in modern nuclear power leads to vastly higher power bills for the ratepayers. I didn't and it does not. French power bills are much lower than German ones. As are Swedish and Finnish ones. Georgia power bills (Vogtle-3/4) are half of California's (PV/wind-meister). Before 2002 (the German Atomausstieg), electricity rates were steadily falling compared to purchasing power. After 2002, they have been steadily rising. In Europe, electricity prices correlate in pretty much a straight line with the penetration of intermittent renewables in the country's electrical grid. The higher the percentage, the higher the prices. > Nuclear power needs to come down in price by 85% to be competitive with renewable systems. That is the fact today. That is about as counterfactual as you can be. Nuclear is cheaper than intermittent renewables on any metric you can find. And that's even before you notice that intermittent renewables don't actually provide power when you need it. The world has left the renewbro dreams behind and is turning to nuclear: - COP28: worldwide tripling of nuclear - UK: quadrupling of nuclear - US: tripling nuclear - Japan + South Korea: were going to abandon nuclear, now expanding instead - Poland: getting into nuclear, in a big way. - Holland: 4 new reactors instead of the originally planned 2 - Sweden: were also going to reduce / discontinue, now want at least 10 new reactors - France: had a law on the books that disallowed the expansion of nuclear capacity in absolute terms and mandated reduction to below 50%. This law was scrapped in March 2023 (>70% majority), now on track to build 14 EPR2 reactors - China: were on track to triple capacity, now accelerating. - India: on track to triple capacity by 2031 - Ukraine: building 4 new AP-1000 - Italy: got out of nuclear late 80s early 90s, now getting back into nuclear - Microsoft, Google, Amazon: all investing heavily in nuclear - Major banks just announced support for nuclear - IPCC calls nuclear essential for tackling climate change - So does the EU, the US government, etc. - Czech repubic: just ordered a South Korean APR-1400 etc.