> Yeah. "Oh, we made a mistake, but it's water under the bridge now. It's too late to build nuclear. Here, get this lump of coal and burn it to warm up. It's fine, we'll phase it out in 20 years. Just don't think about it now, and don't forget to vote for more green energy"
This truly is getting sad. Coal is already being phased out. It is very telling that you don't dare to look forward.
Only complain about what has been. Why don't you go and invest your own money in nuclear power? Why do you want trillions in handouts from the state on a dead-end technology?
Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?
> OK. Why is Germany directly paying for new natural gas generation? Wouldn't it be cheaper to replace coal with cheap renewables and storage? Should be a no-brainer, yeah?
As per their changing energy mix they are quickly replacing coal with renewables? In 2024 60% renewables in the mix.
What is your option? To not build said natural gas plants and wait until the 2040s for new built nuclear power?
How will that solve Germany's electrification needs from switching from natural gas heating to heat pumps in the short term?
I love how you keep evading all real questions. The nuclear cult, never logical.
> Oh, it's the "cheapest energy" only when you don't care about the grid stability (see: Spain) or winter (see: Germany).
And now we're diving straight into falsehood. Can't stay with the truth with you nuclear cultists can we?
Maybe you can explain why 50% of the Spanish nuclear fleet was either offline or withdrawn from the market when the blackout happened?
Maybe you can explain what problems Germany had last winter? A few expensive days? You want to solve a few expensive days by making the electricity all year around multiples more expensive by through authoritarian means forcing everyone to pay for your imaginary nuclear boondoggle?
> If we use Oikiluoto Unit 3 as a guide, it cost 11B euros for 1.6GWe of capacity. Getting to 60GWe would have required 400B euros. Without considering any economy of scale or savings from streamlining the construction.
Thank you for once again confirming that you are out of your depth.
The figure you quote is from a settlement 6 years prior to the plant being finished while construction costs and interest kept accumulating.
No one knows the final cost for OL3, but we do know that it bankrupted Areva and that the French paid for the majority of the costs.
Why didn't you dare bring up Vogtle, Flamanville 3 or Hinkley Point C? Because using those as a guide my numbers was being kind on nuclear power?
> Perhaps you should look in the mirror? Maybe YOU are missing the forest for the trees? In this case, "trees" are vapid editorials about how Germany generated 100% of energy from renewables. Small print: in summer, when demand is low.
Getting stingy now. Annoying dealing with someone who has seen all your talking points and lies you usually shield yourself behind before?