4 ms·

Maybe not less, but given the rise in energy costs, it might make more sense.

by tmaly 1y ago

_aavaa_ 1y ago
Ask the people near Vogtle how that projected impacted their electricity rates. Depending on how SC prices electricity, it might not be able to compete with wind/solar/batteries.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  Hmm...electricity prices in Georgia are less than half of what they are in wind/solar/batteries Mecca California. That is after the (minute) rate rise to pay for Vogtles.
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    I won’t call 1000$ a person before the reactor was even built and then a cumulative >20% increase in electricity price “minute”. More importantly for California it is also a wildfire Mecca, which is what is driving a large amount of those cost increases. You can see if if you grab electricity prices and plot them versus renewable penetration and notice the lack of a trend: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/us-states-electricity-sources-prices https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/us-states-electric...
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      LOL. The rate increase in Georgia was around 1¢ per kWh, from 14¢ to 15¢. The electricity price in California is 32¢ per kWh, due primarily to generating and transmission costs, not due to wildfires. Yes, wildfires contribute, but only around 10%. So without any of those, you'd still have 29¢. For some reason you find the 1¢ increase horrible, but see no problem in the 17¢ difference. Electricity prices correlate with intermittent renewables buildout worldwide. https://stopthesethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cost-electricity-renewables-countries.jpg https://stopthesethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cost-...
      - _aavaa_ 1y ago
        A chart that has been disproved dozens of time from a site that peddles all the regular anti-renewable talking points. The biggest issue with comparing electricity rates across countries is that they have wildly different taxes included in the prices. So direct comparison of the prices is an apples-to-oranges comparison. To say nothing of the fact that prices in many countries are often set by the marginal generator, which in the case of say Germany on that graph is oil, gas, or coal. Most of which is imported from other countries as fluctuates wildly with fuel costs (e.g. price shocks after Russian’s invasion of Ukraine).
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        mpweiher 1y ago
        If the chart "has been disproven" so many times, you should be able to give that proof. I don't see it. And what is your claim with the taxes? That taxes correlate so strongly with intermittent renewables that they override a trend for the cost of intermittent renewables that actually goes in the opposite direction? That is a very bold claim that would need to be backed by some extremely strong evidence. You provide none. If, as you claim, there are "wildly different" taxes, then this would be a random overlay that wouldn't really affect the positive correlation that we see. And of course a lot of renewable subsidies are financed with these taxes, so a positive correlation between taxes and intermittent renewables does not get intermittent renewables off the hook. And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. I'd say that this site, which I don't know, I just did a quick search for a linkable version of the correlation that I am well aware of from other sources, simply collects and publishes the widely available and extremely obvious evidence against high penetration of renewables. And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? How is that, when the intermittent renewables were supposed to remove those dependencies on fossil fuels? All these non-sensical talking points you peddle, the narratives you spin to protect renewables from the cold, hard evidence just don't add up. And I notice that you dropped your equally evidence-free claims about GA vs. CA. Narratives don't work. You need to look at the numbers. And the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. The numbers do add up for nuclear.

Maybe not less, but given the rise in energy costs, it might make more sense.

by tmaly 1y ago

Maybe not less, but given the rise in energy costs, it might make more sense.

Ask the people near Vogtle how that projected impacted their electricity rates. Depending on how SC prices electricity, it might not be able to compete with wind/solar/batteries.

mpweiher 1y ago
Hmm...electricity prices in Georgia are less than half of what they are in wind/solar/batteries Mecca California. That is after the (minute) rate rise to pay for Vogtles.
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  I won’t call 1000$ a person before the reactor was even built and then a cumulative >20% increase in electricity price “minute”. More importantly for California it is also a wildfire Mecca, which is what is driving a large amount of those cost increases. You can see if if you grab electricity prices and plot them versus renewable penetration and notice the lack of a trend: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/us-states-electricity-sources-prices https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/us-states-electric...
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    LOL. The rate increase in Georgia was around 1¢ per kWh, from 14¢ to 15¢. The electricity price in California is 32¢ per kWh, due primarily to generating and transmission costs, not due to wildfires. Yes, wildfires contribute, but only around 10%. So without any of those, you'd still have 29¢. For some reason you find the 1¢ increase horrible, but see no problem in the 17¢ difference. Electricity prices correlate with intermittent renewables buildout worldwide. https://stopthesethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cost-electricity-renewables-countries.jpg https://stopthesethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cost-...
    - _aavaa_ 1y ago
      A chart that has been disproved dozens of time from a site that peddles all the regular anti-renewable talking points. The biggest issue with comparing electricity rates across countries is that they have wildly different taxes included in the prices. So direct comparison of the prices is an apples-to-oranges comparison. To say nothing of the fact that prices in many countries are often set by the marginal generator, which in the case of say Germany on that graph is oil, gas, or coal. Most of which is imported from other countries as fluctuates wildly with fuel costs (e.g. price shocks after Russian’s invasion of Ukraine).
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - mpweiher 1y ago
        If the chart "has been disproven" so many times, you should be able to give that proof. I don't see it. And what is your claim with the taxes? That taxes correlate so strongly with intermittent renewables that they override a trend for the cost of intermittent renewables that actually goes in the opposite direction? That is a very bold claim that would need to be backed by some extremely strong evidence. You provide none. If, as you claim, there are "wildly different" taxes, then this would be a random overlay that wouldn't really affect the positive correlation that we see. And of course a lot of renewable subsidies are financed with these taxes, so a positive correlation between taxes and intermittent renewables does not get intermittent renewables off the hook. And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. I'd say that this site, which I don't know, I just did a quick search for a linkable version of the correlation that I am well aware of from other sources, simply collects and publishes the widely available and extremely obvious evidence against high penetration of renewables. And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? How is that, when the intermittent renewables were supposed to remove those dependencies on fossil fuels? All these non-sensical talking points you peddle, the narratives you spin to protect renewables from the cold, hard evidence just don't add up. And I notice that you dropped your equally evidence-free claims about GA vs. CA. Narratives don't work. You need to look at the numbers. And the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. The numbers do add up for nuclear.