I don't know any evidence of that. My understanding is that it's a highly complex technology, many components unavoidably take a long time to construct, and it may be fundamentally uneconomic.
Has anyone, anywhere in the world profitably (subtracting subsidies) constructed one?
When isolating the existing, completed Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs), they are highly profitable—provided they are actually allowed to operate.
2. What you claim is false. The processes are quite different.
3. I did not present the Google answer as "the truth". I presented it only as what it is: "what Google said". In the context of "I couldn't find any online corroborations of the previous poster's claims".
If you confuse "this is what Google said" with "this is the truth", that's a you-problem.
4. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -- Hitchen's Razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
The claim that ABWRs are "unprofitable" has now been asserted several times without any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, the only thing I actually have to do to dismiss that claim is say "wrong".
Do you have any evidence for your claim?
This meme that nuclear power plants are unprofitable and require subsidies has been spread wide and far by the anti-nuclear lobby, but is still false.
As an example, when the Greens started to come into government in Germany, they tried to force nuclear operators out of business by creating onerous safety rules just for the purpose of forcing them out of business.
It didn't work.
The plants were so profitable that they could afford even the most ridiculous additional safety requirements. So they had to make them illegal.
Furthermore, you can look at France. EDF has been immensely profitable, despite having to sell a large amount of electricity at discounted rates.
Here's an explainer.
That doesn't make it wrong!
> Do you have any evidence for your claim?
No; you agree it's a well-known claim. I've never heard what you say (that I recall). Including the GGP claim that most aren't subsidized.
I note that you have no actual information to counter it. Nor do you have, by your own admission, any information to back up your claims.
The "YouTube video" is by a professor for nuclear science from the University of Illinois.
Professor David Ruzic, head of that department, to be precise.
https://npre.illinois.edu/people/profile/druzic
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Hv__SVAAAAAJ&hl=en
And yes, misinformation about nuclear energy is widely disseminated and thus "well known". Are we really at the point that Trump's "people are saying" is the standard for evidence?
I think we can do better.
In Sweden in 2022 the right wing coalition which won promised new nuclear would appear if only it was allowed. Quickly they abandoned large scale nuclear in favor of SMR, PowerPoints reactors are always cheap.
Four years later, we are at:
- The state takes essentially all financial risk, even borrowing the money because Vattenfall refuses to put it on its own balance sheet.
- The state provides a huge direct taxpayer handout.
- The state takes the construction risk. Cost overruns means taxpayers put in more.
- The state subsidizes the entire final waste repository.
- The state subsidizes roughly the entire accident liability.
- The state guarantees the electricity price for 40 years.
That rather proves the point about what happens when new nuclear meets actual financing conditions.
And right wing coaltion just lost the latest election two weeks ago. Seems like we didn't get any new nuclear after all.
If you answer on point to the point, we can have a discussion.
Otherwise: gish along...
Which is unsurprising, since all six are based on publicly available information.
The very license TFA is about took 14 months.
The NRC completed its review in 14 months—four months ahead of schedule—after concluding that TVA’s application met applicable safety requirements.
https://thebreakthrough.org/press/release-the-nrc-approves-c...