3 ms·

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 pric

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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > In one sentence it’s the cheapest Hinkkley Point C "the cheapest"? Which sentence would that be? Please be specific. Nuclear is the cheapest electrical power source: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... Hinkley Point is the most expensive nuclear reactor project to date, as far as I know. This is not hard.
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      Now you’re just rambling, attempting to shift the subject. I love how you managed to cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency of OECD which through trickery and black magic manages put nuclear in the same magnitude as other options. The general consensus from non-biased sources is that new built nuclear power costs $140 - 240/MWh ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) By far the most expensive option. We can contrast that study with the Swedish proposed nuclear subsidies. In contrast in Sweden the proposed financing is that the Swedish government takes the loan, a way stronger subsidy than simple credit guarantees, that the government pays for cost overruns and a CFD of $80/MWh. The potential builders are still questioning if this subsidy is enough. But typical cult member. Finding any information confirming your bias and then latching on to that as it would be the end of the world to let go. Nuclear power definitely costs €80/MWh unsubsidized. In nuclear cult member fantasyland at least. The insanity in display here is truly something to behold. [1] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/42b23c45-78bc-4482-b0f9-eb826ae2da3d/WorldEnergyOutlook2023.pdf https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/42b23c45-78bc-4482-... [2]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flamanville-3-nuclear-projects-cost-may-rise-eu67bn-france.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flam... [3]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [4](https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...) [5]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mpweiher 2y ago
  > In one sentence it’s the cheapest Hinkkley Point C "the cheapest"? Which sentence would that be? Please be specific. Nuclear is the cheapest electrical power source: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... Hinkley Point is the most expensive nuclear reactor project to date, as far as I know. This is not hard.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Now you’re just rambling, attempting to shift the subject. I love how you managed to cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency of OECD which through trickery and black magic manages put nuclear in the same magnitude as other options. The general consensus from non-biased sources is that new built nuclear power costs $140 - 240/MWh ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) By far the most expensive option. We can contrast that study with the Swedish proposed nuclear subsidies. In contrast in Sweden the proposed financing is that the Swedish government takes the loan, a way stronger subsidy than simple credit guarantees, that the government pays for cost overruns and a CFD of $80/MWh. The potential builders are still questioning if this subsidy is enough. But typical cult member. Finding any information confirming your bias and then latching on to that as it would be the end of the world to let go. Nuclear power definitely costs €80/MWh unsubsidized. In nuclear cult member fantasyland at least. The insanity in display here is truly something to behold. [1] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/42b23c45-78bc-4482-b0f9-eb826ae2da3d/WorldEnergyOutlook2023.pdf https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/42b23c45-78bc-4482-... [2]: https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flamanville-3-nuclear-projects-cost-may-rise-eu67bn-france.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/flam... [3]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [4](https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...) [5]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...