On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 02:16:10 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
David P wrote

According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average
nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-
hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar
and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind.

Those are utterly bogus numbers when you consider
the real cost of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

Only a clueless person compares 24/7 output to intermittent output like solar & wind. The numbers are misleading anyway, for every gigawatt of PV you also need another gigawatt of reliable generation, making the cost of using PV inevitably higher. Ie the numbers you quote are at best entirely misleading.


The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable
energy costs are now €œat or below the marginal cost of
conventional generation€�€”that is, fossil fuels€”

Thats a lie when you consider the real cost
of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

Firstly it did say marginal. And it depends entirely on how you massage the figures.

and much lower than nuclear.

Another bare faced lie.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought
down.

And in practice China shows that they are doing just that.

true of any tech


But we have had more than a half-century to test that
theory and it appears have been solidly refuted.

Another bare faced lie with China.

Government requirements have massively increased.


Unlike nearly all other technologies, the
cost of nuclear power has risen over time.

It has with coal too, because of the much higher costs
of clean power generation with coal and no longer using
cheap lignite coal for power generation because its so dirty.

Even its supporters recognize that it has never been
cost-competitive in a free-market environment,

Another bare faced lie.

it isn't true

and its critics point out that the nuclear industry
has followed a €œnegative learning curve.€�

Another bare faced lie.

meaningless propaganda


Moreover, catastrophic nuclear accidents, however infrequent, can bring
about these physical and psychological consequences on a vast scale.

Another bare faced lie. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima did anything of the
sort.

No technological system is ever perfect, but the
vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great.

BULL****.

All types of generation plant are bombable & sabotageable. Nukes have the considerable advantages of high security & a blastproof building. So yeah, total bull.


Climate change itself works against nuclear power;

Even sillier than you usually manage.

severe droughts have led to the shutting down
of reactors as the surrounding waters become
too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Trivially avoidable by having the nukes cooled by sea water.

Ie engineers designed the heat exchange system to only cope with so much, and these conditions were exceeded. That's engineering for you, it happens. Future designs will learn from that & be more able.

Saying it's the result of climate change borders on laughable.


NT