Is your stance we should not have a diverse grid? Because that’s the only point I’ve really made this whole time. The more methods we have to produce electricity and the more redundancy the better. Currently active nuclear plants produce the cheapest power. Building new is more expensive, sure. That doesn’t mean we abandon the tech and soley focus on one solution.
That’s such a wild misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying that anyone reading what you just said can only conclude that you’re arguing in bad faith.
My only point through this conversation is the factual statement that nuclear is not a competitive option.
Saying that "nuclear is cheapest once it gets running" is so ridiculous that, again, it has to be made in bad faith, because you’re intentionally glossing over the whole point: the MASSIVE cost of building it, the massive cost of decommissioning it, and the massive cost in case anything goes wrong.
There are heaps of solutions out there for a balanced grid. Nuclear has no place in it.
What does a balanced grid look like, for you? I’m not arguing in bad faith I’m giving my opinion. One that’s based on the last decade of my career working as a mechanical engineer in the generation space. Are currently active plants viable or should they be shut down?
Is your stance we should not have a diverse grid? Because that’s the only point I’ve really made this whole time. The more methods we have to produce electricity and the more redundancy the better. Currently active nuclear plants produce the cheapest power. Building new is more expensive, sure. That doesn’t mean we abandon the tech and soley focus on one solution.
That’s such a wild misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying that anyone reading what you just said can only conclude that you’re arguing in bad faith.
My only point through this conversation is the factual statement that nuclear is not a competitive option.
Saying that "nuclear is cheapest once it gets running" is so ridiculous that, again, it has to be made in bad faith, because you’re intentionally glossing over the whole point: the MASSIVE cost of building it, the massive cost of decommissioning it, and the massive cost in case anything goes wrong.
There are heaps of solutions out there for a balanced grid. Nuclear has no place in it.
What does a balanced grid look like, for you? I’m not arguing in bad faith I’m giving my opinion. One that’s based on the last decade of my career working as a mechanical engineer in the generation space. Are currently active plants viable or should they be shut down?