@carolynporco All sleight-of-hand to further enrich fossil fuels shareholders, who successfully keep #renewables and #SMR tech at a 10% market share - and completely suppress the only viable #BaseloadEnergy - #TMSR tech, until #NuclearFusion can be integrated. Nuclear fusion is 100 years out, and about half the human population too late.
@SuperMoosie@NuModular You're wrong about cost comparison. The many years of subsidies to 'renewables' has given ppl the idea that nuclear is far more expensive. When all appropriate elements are considered, it's not true.
Bloomberg and Lazard have
show for many years the levelised cost of energy (with out tax breaks or subsidiaries)
dor nuclear is way above other forms of energy (coal, gas) and twiice the cost of renewables.
Renewables and storage continue to drop as mass manufacturing increases.
@SuperMoosie@NuModular One has to consider both developmental costs and operational costs. 'Renewables' have large grid integration costs and low capacity factors. They require a supplement. That's why oil/gas have aligned with them & tried to destroy nuclear. Nuclear may be more costly to develop but renewables are more costly to operate.
BNEF and Lazard are investment banks. They show what is good for their investors. Their investors are after short-term gain.
If you look at slightly more diverse LCOE estimates (and with more transparent methodology too), the Lazard result for nuclear becomes a weird outlier.
Add comment