> The argument I am making is that the competition ceases to be interesting because the US doesn't get to field its best squad on account of a highly controversial on-field decision (itself downstream of a mis-application of VAR).
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
Which is a metric having one source throughout all weather, coupled with 2018 battery storage as per the study showcased in the blog.
Not sure what the relevancy is.
Here, a modern article modeling "System LCOE". In other words, the whole grid including transmission backup and everything else.
It starts by giving new built nuclear power the benefit of doubt, having it cost 40% less than Flamanville 3 and 70% less than Hinkley Point C. Since no one would ever be stupid enough to greenlight a project like that again.
Ignoring that the last time Ontario attempted to build nuclear power the utility went into bankruptcy forcing the public to take on an absolutely enormous stranded debt.
Yes. That is the issue. How do you suggest the nuclear plants will survive in such an environment when they are already today, early in the renewable disruption, facing headwinds?
Then more just attacking the author. Then trying to discredit this paper by an old one, and you clearly haven't read the criticism.
The criticism said:
1. Assuming new built nuclear power is cheap and fast to build then you are wrong!!!!
But you never read further than the headline did you?
Then you go on to mindless complaining. Yes, it would have been amazing if Denmark and Germany built nuclear power half a century ago and decarbonized their grids.
But we live in 2026 and there's no point crying over spilled milk.
> nuclear combined with renewables when history proved this pathway gives the best results?
Which is revionist history. As shown by the French nuclear plants struggling to cope with an increasingly renewable grid. Same with the Swedish ones where 4 reactors has shut down due to market conditions in recent years. They were hemorrhaging money.
You are looking at an incredibly short period of time where half a century old paid off plants are still around and renewables haven't completely disrupted the French grid yet.
Please do explain how you would fit a nuclear plant into this grid mix:
I love that you now deflect to off-shore wind subsidies. Not daring to face onshore wind, solar or storage.
Followed by again complaining about 2010 solar being expensie. To absolutely no ones surprise.
In Australia CSIRO assuming a status quo energy system, i.e. not electrified society, put the extra costs for a renewable Australian grid at ~€12B. That's less than the subsidies a single new built nuclaer reactor requires.
Isn't it funny how entire country scale transmission systems becomes cheap when compared to the subsidies required new built nuclear power?
When means you lock in hundreds of billions of euros in nuclear handouts from tax money which could have vastly larger impact if invested in renewables. You know, opportunity cost.
It scales from a single reactor to a grid. If you waste money on a reactor which could have vastly larger impact if invested in renewables then you will never catch up to the emissions that could ahve been avoided.
You framing the question as stupid is because it hits too close to home. You truly are afraid of renewables and storage. Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry? Is that the issue?
Again. Who cares if we include an emergency reserve of fossil gas? Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough, especially not when we need to consider cumulative emissions.
Do you even grasp the concept of cumulative emissions?
Exactly? We are removing renewable subsidies all over the world because they aren't needed anymore?
In Germany the recent solar renewable subsidies are lower than market price for their electricity, but it offers longterm stability for the producer which is why they sign up.
This is not driven by subsidies:
> Driven by record solar growth, low-carbon power generation increased by 887 TWh in 2025, outpacing electricity demand growth of 849 TWh. Solar power alone met 75% of the net increase in electricity demand. Together with wind, the two sources met almost all (99%) demand growth. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and only the fifth time this century, fossil generation did not rise, recording a small fall of 38 TWh (-0.2%).
Followed by still only being able to look back. Complaining that 2010 solar is expensive. To what relevence you still haven't been able to explain.
You do realize that to decarbonize society, no matter the source, we need to 2-3x our grid size depending on local industry? The transmission uprating is coming no matter the source of electricity.
Again. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online?
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
They do. They have a diamond which is Vogtle with a 97% capacity factor and 70 year economic lifespan. Still leading to horrifyingly expensive electricity.
Like I said. It is an admission in how far you need to tilt the numbers to still get it to be horrifyingly expensive.
We have studies like that. But I know people like you desperately try to dismiss them.
Here, a modern article modeling "System LCOE". In other words, the whole grid including transmission backup and everything else.
It starts by giving new built nuclear power the benefit of doubt, having it cost 40% less than Flamanville 3 and 70% less than Hinkley Point C. Since no one would ever be stupid enough to greenlight a project like that again.
Ahhh. The magical, ”just restart”, handwaving away all issues.
You do realize that the nuclear lobby group found the easiest reactors to restart were in the north? Which is already constrained by an oversupply of renewables and limited transmission infrastructure.
How will that help?
Also. Why get less decarbonization by wasting money and opportunity on new built nuclear power when we still need to decarbonize construction, agriculture, shipping, showroom, industry?
Why are you unable to look forward? I see a wall of text complaining about the past.
Again. Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online?
Are you suggesting that Germany would be better off by keeping their current emissions until the mid ~2040s waiting for horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power to come online?
Who cares if the emergency reserves are fossil gas when we still need to decarbonize agriculture, construction, aviation, industry, maritime shipping and so on?
When those emergency reserve emissions matter on the scale of the entire economy then force them to be zero carbon fuel, if still necessary.
You’re trying to blow up potential what if’s 15 years from now as the end of the world.
Followed by looking backwards. What you are complaining about is that 2010 solar was expensive and still get paid that expensive price.
What’s the relevance when it comes to choosing what the most efficient spending of money is in 2026?
Please do tell me the expected capacity factor of these biomass plants, even if 18 cents per kWh is correct, after renewables, storage, hydro if available and existing nuclear plants with 80 year LTOs do the heavy lifting.
Can you see the difference compared to new built nuclear power which requires that absolutely insane price when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years?
That’s an extremely rosy picture not aligned with reality.
You can’t compare it with a house mortgage.
They had X in earning potential in a set time frame.
The debt accumulated was X + Y.
After the restructuring the public were left as bagholders of the ”+ Y” since it would be impossible to pay it off reasonably under the current framework.
A new framework was created where this stranded debt was paid off as a forced separate line item on everyone’s bills.
In other words. They were bankrupt, if the state hadn’t stepped in then they would not have been able to amortize the debt in the expected timeframe.
It was a government owned utility, it couldn’t go bankrupt in the traditional sense since it has taxpayer backing.
But its finances were completely underwater with no way out due to the debt from nuclear construction.
After the breakup the public were left with $38B in debt from nuclear construction. Which the subsequent nuclear company was unable to pay off, or it would of course not have been restructured.
I don’t see much controversy. It is a clear red. Being suspended is the risk you face when challenging that hard.
You play with the team you have in the game. Players get injured, suspended or has previous yellows that would leads to a suspension if another is gotten.
That’s all part of the game.