4 ms·

Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time? Stop and think about that argument for a second

by amarant 6mo ago

ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture. You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is? The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh. Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
- amarant 6mo ago
  Are you ever going to produce a source that backs up any of your statements? Read the Wikipedia article, that's the minimum amount of research required for any subject. Instead you've cited a lobby groups "illustrative numbers", and even misrepresented them!
  - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
    Sorry it was €60 per MWh, I suppose 65 is the number in USD. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-unveils-forecast-nuclear-power-costs-over-period-2026-2040.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality. What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space. And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent. It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive. You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.

Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time? Stop and think about that argument for a second

by amarant 6mo ago

Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time? Stop and think about that argument for a second

ViewTrick1002 6mo ago

I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture. You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is? The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh. Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?

amarant 6mo ago
Are you ever going to produce a source that backs up any of your statements? Read the Wikipedia article, that's the minimum amount of research required for any subject. Instead you've cited a lobby groups "illustrative numbers", and even misrepresented them!
- ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
  Sorry it was €60 per MWh, I suppose 65 is the number in USD. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-unveils-forecast-nuclear-power-costs-over-period-2026-2040.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality. What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space. And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent. It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive. You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.