> This truly is getting sad. Coal is already being phased out. It is very telling that you don't dare to look forward.
We'll see if it actually happens. It probably will, but I can say for certain that it WILL be phased out in favor of imported natural gas. Not renewables. Not hydrogen. Not power-to-gas.
This is completely locked-in right now, with new replacement natural gas plants already in the process of bidding.
> Maybe you can explain why 50% of the Spanish nuclear fleet was either offline or withdrawn from the market when the blackout happened?
Because the useless renewable strategy incentivizes only dirt-grade generation. It priced out reliable power, resulting in an unreliable grid. It's like the McDonalds of energy generation: fast food results in obesity because it's so cheap.
Once stability requirements are taken into account, solar and wind stop being so cheap. You suddenly need storage and grid-forming inverters that require a part of the capacity go unused.
To be fair, for Spain, solar and wind are still likely going to be cheaper than nuclear even when the grid investments are considered. For Germany? Not a chance.
> The figure you quote is from a settlement 6 years prior to the plant being finished while construction costs and interest kept accumulating.
No. I took the figures from 2023. The levelized cost of energy from Oikiluoto Unit 3 is 5 cents per kWh, according to the recent report from Finland.
> 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.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about we take the cost for the Rooppur power plant then? Or maybe Shin-Hanul Unit 2? They work out to about 2-3 times _less_ than OL3. I specifically took the numbers that are overly conservative to demonstrate the utter failure of Energiewende.
> Getting stingy now. Annoying dealing with someone who has seen all your talking points and lies you usually shield yourself behind before?
Want a bet? In 10 years Germany will de-facto abandon Energiewende and will increase reliance on fossil fuels. The turning point will be the phaseout of coal which will increase the rates past the limits of affordability for the industry. This will result in stalled transport electrification and further cause the industry to lose its edge.
> It probably will, but I can say for certain that it WILL be phased out in favor of imported natural gas.
It is very hard to take you seriously when the fossil gas contingent have been reducing in most countries, or stayed constant like in Germany. While phasing out coal at the same time.
In California fossil gas is down 40% mainly due to storage time shifting previously curtailed renewable production.
> Because the useless renewable strategy incentivizes only dirt-grade generation. It priced out reliable power, resulting in an unreliable grid. It's like the McDonalds of energy generation: fast food results in obesity because it's so cheap.
You know, so reliable that France relies on 35 GW fossil based production to manage cold spells.
Just pretend the grid demand is a flat line and everything is solved.
> To be fair, for Spain, solar and wind are still likely going to be cheaper than nuclear even when the grid investments are considered. For Germany? Not a chance.
Source please. Why do you keep making stuff up when you time and time again prove that you are flailing out of your depth here?
> No. I took the figures from 2023. The levelized cost of energy from Oikiluoto Unit 3 is 5 cents per kWh, according to the recent report from Finland.
Hahahahhaha. Oh my god. How can you function at work when you desperately cling to any information that confirms your bias?
The 5 cents per kWh report is with subsidized financing and for the Finnish portion of the costs. You know, they signed a turn-key fixed price contract and the French has paid the vast majority of the costs.
Nuclear power is of course amazing, when someone else pays for it!
What do you think is the likelihood of the French signing another turnkey contract at OL3 costs??????
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about we take the cost for the Rooppur power plant then? Or maybe Shin-Hanul Unit 2? They work out to about 2-3 times _less_ than OL3. I specifically took the numbers that are overly conservative to demonstrate the utter failure of Energiewende.
You mean KHNP which has withdrawn from the international market after the settlement with Westinghouse? Yeah, go buy that! Of course ignoring that the South Korean plants have completely opaque accounting and costs, with a massive corruption scandal to boot.
Just cheat yourself to cheap nuclear power! I love it when you nuclear cultists just make ridicule of yourselves by not being read up on the energy source you have entwined your identity with.
And we of course have Indian salaries in the west. The problem with nuclear power is that it is a civil engineering project.
> Want a bet? In 10 years Germany will de-facto abandon Energiewende and will increase reliance on fossil fuels. The turning point will be the phaseout of coal which will increase the rates past the limits of affordability for the industry. This will result in stalled transport electrification and further cause the industry to lose its edge.
There we have it. You are an old man shouting at the clouds because reality is moving past your decades old identity.
I would suggest some curiosity when approaching the world instead. It would do you good.
I just responded to you in a different thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45021981), but you broke the site guidelines egregiously here as well. Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, so please stop doing that, and please also don't post in the flamewar style generally.
We'll see if it actually happens. It probably will, but I can say for certain that it WILL be phased out in favor of imported natural gas. Not renewables. Not hydrogen. Not power-to-gas.
This is completely locked-in right now, with new replacement natural gas plants already in the process of bidding.
> Maybe you can explain why 50% of the Spanish nuclear fleet was either offline or withdrawn from the market when the blackout happened?
Because the useless renewable strategy incentivizes only dirt-grade generation. It priced out reliable power, resulting in an unreliable grid. It's like the McDonalds of energy generation: fast food results in obesity because it's so cheap.
Once stability requirements are taken into account, solar and wind stop being so cheap. You suddenly need storage and grid-forming inverters that require a part of the capacity go unused.
To be fair, for Spain, solar and wind are still likely going to be cheaper than nuclear even when the grid investments are considered. For Germany? Not a chance.
> The figure you quote is from a settlement 6 years prior to the plant being finished while construction costs and interest kept accumulating.
No. I took the figures from 2023. The levelized cost of energy from Oikiluoto Unit 3 is 5 cents per kWh, according to the recent report from Finland.
> 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.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. How about we take the cost for the Rooppur power plant then? Or maybe Shin-Hanul Unit 2? They work out to about 2-3 times _less_ than OL3. I specifically took the numbers that are overly conservative to demonstrate the utter failure of Energiewende.
> Getting stingy now. Annoying dealing with someone who has seen all your talking points and lies you usually shield yourself behind before?
Want a bet? In 10 years Germany will de-facto abandon Energiewende and will increase reliance on fossil fuels. The turning point will be the phaseout of coal which will increase the rates past the limits of affordability for the industry. This will result in stalled transport electrification and further cause the industry to lose its edge.