Ditch Nuclear and Save $860M with Grid Flexibility, U.K. Told
forbes.com
forbes.com
The US federal govt just granted $1.4B to an Oregon company to build nukes for a site in Idaho. That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately.
Intentionally misrepresenting the facts ensures this isn't a fair hearing. Sure the nuclear industry is guilty of it as well, but we still should be skeptical of any "report" that claims the best plan is the one that will make their company millions of dollars.
>That $1.4B could build a hell of a lot of solar and energy storage that would work immediately.
Or it could build a nuclear plant that would generate more energy overall.
No nuke plant has been built for $1.4B. So, no, that would be just a down payment for a plant that might produce power at great additional cost a decade or more later, if not abandoned first. Solar could begin producing power immediately, during build-out. And at night, from stored energy.
We have decades of actual records on the actual performance of fission power. It stinks. It has been a massive publicly subsidized boondoggle for 70 years. Too much is enough.
I'm always perplexed by the people that claim it is clear that nuclear power is a lost cause. If the evidence is so strong that renewables are the best economic choice, why is this company making up shit to draw people away from nuclear? Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price?
(No comment.)
> Why do people resort to disaster scare tactics if nuclear isn't at least competitive on price?
Perhaps to counter promoters who habitually resort to deception, as observed even in the august pages of HN?
This "because the other side lies we need to too" excuse is nonsense. If nuclear power is a "massive publicly subsidized boondoggle" then you should be able to show a clear advantage without resorting to deception.
Such circumstances are reliably identified anywhere retail fission power got built.
I just can not understand this position.
Still, nuke plants got built, and still operate. Why? Promoters insisted they would not be more expensive, and would in fact be cheaper, knowing full well (as was revealed later) that they would not.
Thus, the only reason nuke, and lately coal, plants continue operating is corruption. Most recently, details leaked of what happened in Ohio to keep theirs operating, involving $millions in bribes in exchange for $billions in public subsidies.
So this "can not understand" is not convincing. The facts are public for anybody who cares to learn them. Protestations of innocence ring hollow. There is no one left to fool.