| There is no valid argument against the eye watering price of nuclear power. The arguments break down into: * Pretending that solar/wind isnt 5x cheaper per unit. * Pretending that only pricey batteries rather than cheap pumped storage can accomodate its variability. * Pretending that there is a geographical shortage of potential pumped storage locations. * Pretending that you'd need weeks of power storage to get to 99% carbon free rather than hours. * Pretending that nuclear power does load following rather than relying upon gas to fill in its gaps like solar and wind. * Pretending that nuclear power always produces 100% stable power. France manages an average of 72%. Denmark has a wind farm that manages 68%. The only context in which nuclear power is cost effective is if you are keeping rickety old plants running longer than their scheduled lifetime, which isnt safe OR if the government is using it to subsidize nuclear arsenals/subs/etc. |