2 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Lovely. All you do is keep claiming stuff and sidestep all questions you don’t want to face without any reputable sources to back it up. Then attempting to justify it by subsidy programs being launched. In one sentence it’s the cheapest in the next sentence truly enormous subsidy programs are needed to even get projects started. And that’s a win?!? Like, please provide a source for this statement which is completely contrary to all reputable modern research on the subject: > 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. You sound like a deranged cult member who has been caught out.

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.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Lovely. All you do is keep claiming stuff and sidestep all questions you don’t want to face without any reputable sources to back it up. Then attempting to justify it by subsidy programs being launched. In one sentence it’s the cheapest in the next sentence truly enormous subsidy programs are needed to even get projects started. And that’s a win?!? Like, please provide a source for this statement which is completely contrary to all reputable modern research on the subject: > 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. You sound like a deranged cult member who has been caught out.