4 ms·

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 jus

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
    > cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency The IEA is the International Energy Agency. It deals with energy in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency You are thinking of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Different agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag... What you describe as "consensus" is nothing of the sort. And of course you cite mostly opinion pieces. The one actual "study" that compares costs is ... drumroll... Lazard. I was waiting for that one. If you actually read the study, you will find that they did not actually look at the cost of nuclear power. It even says so in the footnotes. They weren't interested in the cost of nuclear for that study, and so used the cost of Vogtle (the most expensive reactors to date) as a stand-in. If you don't believe me, believe the vice-chairman of Lazard who is responsible for that study “We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35) “We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ

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
  > cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency The IEA is the International Energy Agency. It deals with energy in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency You are thinking of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Different agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag... What you describe as "consensus" is nothing of the sort. And of course you cite mostly opinion pieces. The one actual "study" that compares costs is ... drumroll... Lazard. I was waiting for that one. If you actually read the study, you will find that they did not actually look at the cost of nuclear power. It even says so in the footnotes. They weren't interested in the cost of nuclear for that study, and so used the cost of Vogtle (the most expensive reactors to date) as a stand-in. If you don't believe me, believe the vice-chairman of Lazard who is responsible for that study “We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35) “We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ