The Great Missed Opportunity of Nuclear Power

And how much does that cost? Are you under the impression that Navy nuclear power is cheap? Because it's not. It's crazy expensive. The Navy doesn't have to worry about making a profit.

When the topic is economics, cost matters.

 

We hadn't noticed.

 

By this time, everyone has noticed that if you have to go off-script, you're helpless. All you can to is link to propaganda.

 

And yet, here we are. I let the peer-reviewed research do most of my talking.

 

How much does it cost?

 

And how much do renewable installations cost including not producing at night or when the sun isn't shining?

 

Renewables need duplication. To ensure uninterrupted power supply there must be 2X capacity. Fossil or nuclear capacity must be available when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Or as is done in the third world of California they have rolling blackouts.

 

I'd suggest the duplication factor is far higher than that. At least 5 or 6. Weather like we've been having would kill renewables for more than a day.

Good point.

 

I know his real name while you still have exactly ZERO evidence against him and have already told you don't have to believe it.

For a guy who claims to have a physics degree you sure have trouble understanding how to present a viable argument.

I am not retreating which is another pile of baloney you made up.

You still show no evidence that you earned a Physics degree as you write too poorly to support that possibility which greatly increases the possibility that you made it up.

Cheers.

 

No, you don't link to research. You link to someone's misrepresentation of the research. That is, propaganda.

 

Feel free to cite any link of mine to a misrepresentation of research. Otherwise, keep silent.

 

If someone is a babbling crank, then they don't hold a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics.

Billy believes in the magic intelligent photon theory. That makes him a babbling crank.

Hence, anyone not driven by a deranged political conspiracy will agree that he does not hold a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics.

So, like him, do you also believe that photons ejected by cooler objects somehow know not to strike warmer objects?

And tell us, which universities teach that exceedingly peculiar theory? Can you show us one?

Since you apparently also support the magic intelligent photon theory, back to the kiddie table with you. Perhaps the third-graders can educate you on the topic, as even they know that light isn't intelligent.

I see why you use personal insults so often. It's not like you can debate anyone on the science, so you have to deflect somehow.

 

Says the guy who started the personal insults in this thread in post #102.

Oops.

That's generally how it works with you. I'll point out the problems with your cherrypicked view of reality, and you'll ignore my points and deflect with personal attacks, along with a haughty "But I gave a source, so I must not be questioned!" sniff. Like you did in this thread.

Now, I'll do what upsets you most, which is actually talk about the topic that you supposedly want to talk about. It seems like you don't actually want to debate; you just want to preach.

My point:

A "what could have been" argument is pointless, because "what could have been" isn't "what is."

"What is" is that nuclear power is insanely expensive. Not because of some mythical green policies, but because no one knows how to build large commercial reactors any more.

Since you can get far, far more bang for the buck with renewables, building new nuclear power stations don't make sense.

 

You opened with a falsehood. That invalidates what follows.

 

The point of the thread is "what could have been."

 

What could have been does not mean that it still could be. Progressives don’t want nuclear power not because it is so expensive (their policies, regulations, and legal challenges have made it so) but progressives are opposed to economic growth and improving the standards of living for all the world’s people.

Renewables are a dead end. They result in reduced economic growth, keeping the standards of living down in developing countries, and ridiculously high energy prices to the consumer (Wind powered Germany).

Who is taking advantage of the Western democracies foot shooting policies? The CCP who are building coal fired power plants in developing countries to provide the inexpensive power available 24/7 which is crucial to economic growth. Plus the CCP is selling green equipment to the western democracies. So developing countries are allying with the CCP while the CCP sells coffin nails to the western democracies. Two’fer.

 

Despite your denials, everyone can still see you started the insults in post #102. You projecting your own behavior on to ethical people.

And again, I'll try to get you to discuss your own topic.

And I pointed out how pointless that was. And as you have no response to that, the point stands.

 

Fascinating. That conspiracy theory has no basis in reality, and it's contradicted by all the observable evidence, yet you still believe in it.

So why the increasing investment in renewable?

No, don't give us some lunatic conspiracy about government subsidies. Renewable energy sources are built because they're so very profitable. It's the free market in action. Why do conservatives hate the free market so much?

In contrast to fossil-fuel powered Texas. Oops. People love a $1000 household electric bill for one month. That's Texas.

The non-free energy markets distort actual power cost. Renewables are dirt cheap, yet electricity costs will still rise, due to fossil fuel electricity costing so much.

If you don't have a good argument, just invoke a conspiracy about China.

 

The investment in dead end wind and solar is driven by government subsidies, tax credits, and the Malthusian narrative in which facts don’t matter. There is no free market with regard to “green energy”.

The CCP is laughing at the western democracies. And for good reason.

 

Your idea of "pointless" is to foreclose exploration of an interesting possibility.
And no, there's no insult in any post of mine.

 

This is your post 102,

 

Nuclear is now sustainable in the UK.
Renewable Fail: Britain to Now Class Nuclear Power as “Sustainable Energy”
Eric Worrall
The British government has caved in to the reality that renewables don’t work, and will now include nuclear energy in its plan to transition to “sustainable” power. . . .

 

Great decision and even greater strategy to start a competitive capitalistic effort between entrepreneurial entities to develop a low cost small reactor design. The US has much to learn from it’s “fatherland” across the Atlantic. Hopefully the EU follows the lead of the UK although Germany is shutting down all their nuclear power plants and burning lignite. France continues to rely on nuclear as far as I know.

 

Emails Reveal: Bureaucrats censor radiation risk science fraud by cancelling whistleblowers; Huge implications for nuclear power and more
Guest Blogger
What if the public’s fears about common exposures to radiation were not only baseless, but the product of epic science fraud?

From JunkScience.com

Steve Milloy

What if the public’s fears about common exposures to radiation were not only baseless, but the product of epic science fraud? And what if the people we have trusted with setting radiation safety standards have knowingly suppressed that reality for decades, including up to the present day?

JunkScience.com is presenting for the first time emails uncovered via the Freedom of Information Act that expose the inner workings of a little-known bureaucracy dedicated to keeping in place the so-called “linear non-threshold model” (LNT). The LNT is used by regulatory agencies to set permitted exposure standards for radiation.


So if you have been concerned or scared of anything associated with radiation — from medical diagnostics to TSA screening to radon in your basement to nuclear power plants — you have been an unwitting victim of the LNT. As explained in this recent article, the LNT has been responsible for producing crippling fear of low-level radiation exposures. . . . .