> Don't let comments like this fool you, nuclear is far from being competitive with natural gas. Even in countries like south korea that can deploy nuclear the cheapest it's still $3/watt roughly.
People still insist that ecofascists(?) or NIMBYism is what killed nuclear, when the reality is that it was the coal industry.
There is sort of some truth to that but its still pretty disingenuous to phase it that way. The more honest way to say it is that the NIMBYists are (probably somewhat unintentionally) keeping FFs in use by opposing nuclear.
Also, you (and everyone else in the thread) are listing capacity costs. Nobody cares about capacity costs except the CFO of a utility. Utilization costs are what matters. And by that (honest) metric, nuclear is quite cheap if you exclude the extra costs due to scientifically illiterate eco-activists and regulators.
People like to say that "A diamond is forever" is the best marketing effort of all time. I disagree, the ability of FF extractors to get ecos to do their dirty work for them is far more "impressive" (from a POV lacking in ethics).
PS The number of outright falsehoods in just this thread about nuclear should prove my point. Just research about how nuclear pays for cleanup and compare that to some comments in this thread for an example.
Why are you phrasing your correction in the form of a question? I think it's pretty reasonable to infer that he mistakenly thought it was a Stanford study because the link was from Stanford.
Most states (at least in the midwest) have not kept up with their obligations when it comes to funding the historical land grand universities ("state" university, etc.).
A lot of state universities (not just in the Midwest) have become professional football teams with an educational institution attached. And I say this as a fan of one of those teams.
The TFR decline of the rest of the world over the past decade has been astronomical. There simply aren't that many young people left in the world to pull from. South American countries have seen >50% declines.
Until the VERY recent Chevron ruling, that's how Congress's powers were intepreted.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (or Elastic Clause) in the Constitution grants (or granted, I guess) this power.
It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen.
> It's wild to think how Republicans used to complain about activist judges, but the current Federalist Society slate has undone at least 100+ years of precedent in the last half dozen.
Projection, as usual. When in opposition they act as if the Democrats were doing <insert evil thing>, so they can justify doing <evil thing> when they come topower, because it's "just a reaction".
Okay. Let's say the low lows of a middle Sweden equivalent climate are brought more in line with current UK temp ranges. Let's say the winter temp goes up +10 degrees Celsius.
What happens then to, say, the Mediterranean at +10 C average temps? Seems quite bad, eh?
People still insist that ecofascists(?) or NIMBYism is what killed nuclear, when the reality is that it was the coal industry.
reply