[Panino]

> The trick is that they keep building the same obsolete US-based design

Wikipedia has a list of nuclear reactors in France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran...

According to the list, most power plants came online in the 1980s, so it doesn't sound like they "keep building" more of them. The most recent ones, Civaux and Chooz-B, came online in 2000. Flamanville appears to be incorrectly stated as having came online in 2020. Clicking the link, you see that its 2 reactors came online in 1986 and 1987, and as for the third one -- "as of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor. In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial introduction date to the end of 2022. In January 2022, more delays were announced, with fuel loading continuing until mid-2023, and again in December 2022, delaying fuel loading to early 2024."

All of the nuclear reactors in France were built by previous generations.

As an aside, I'm pro- wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, and nuclear. (I'm also very pro-smart-design which obviates the need for created energy.) However I only really see nuclear proponents (and those of fossil fuels) attacking renewables. And I only really see fossil fuel and nuclear proponents making widespread demonstrably false statements. My rooftop solar is producing a big yearly surplus, supplying my neighbors with energy for their AC etc. I think nuclear proponents who say that nuclear is so cheap and so easy should prove it by building their own nuclear reactors and make tons of money. Go ahead, just do it. Stop talking and do it.

[opo]

>As an aside, I'm pro- wind, hydro, geothermal, solar, and nuclear. (I'm also very pro-smart-design which obviates the need for created energy.)

I think many of the people who aren't anti-nuclear, would agree with all that.

>However I only really see nuclear proponents (and those of fossil fuels) attacking renewables.

I rarely see that here. What I tend to see are people who don't like the idea of nuclear power making misleading or false statements about nuclear power. (Like in the original message of this thread where the claim is made "After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.")

>My rooftop solar is producing a big yearly surplus, supplying my neighbors with energy for their AC etc.

This statement is true in one small sense and misleading in another. You are likely providing excess power during a sunny day in the summer and less power than you are using when it rains and you are providing no power at other times (like at 2:00 AM.). While at the end of the year you might produce more kilowatts than you in total used, that isn't going to help your neighbors when it is raining. The only issue with consumer roof-top solar is that it is the most expensive form of power ever created and consequently has to be heavily subsidized by your neighbors who don't have rooftop solar.

[godelski]

A problem with both nuclear-bros as well as anti-nuclear folks is that they tend to get their information through armchair experts who oversimplify extremely complex topics. Neither group tends to understand the real reasons for costs, the risks and dangers of technologies (including other than nuclear, for proper comparisons), or even the complexities of simply emissions which is far more than electricity and transportation and includes daily and seasonal fluxuations across an extremely non-homogeneous landscape.

FWIW, the IPCC advocates for a diversified portfolio which includes nuclear, and this is the general stance of most climate and energy researchers as the simplified version of reasoning (I know, ironic) is "don't take it off the table." When to use it, how much, and where is more controversial, but this gets extremely complicated quite quickly. It's rather problematic when the people disseminating information (i.e. science communicators; both on youtube as well as news) are not actively aligned with scientific consensus.

[opo]

>FWIW, the IPCC advocates for a diversified portfolio which includes nuclear, and this is the general stance of most climate and energy researchers as the simplified version of reasoning (I know, ironic) is "don't take it off the table." When to use it, how much, and where is more controversial, but this gets extremely complicated quite quickly.

This seems like the most reasonable approach - if someone disagrees with this, it would be interesting to hear their reasoning.

[cauch]

> I rarely see that here. What I tend to see are people who don't like the idea of nuclear power making misleading or false statements about nuclear power. (Like in the original message of this thread where the claim is made "After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.")

I think it's just easier to notice "misleading or false statements" when they contradict what we like to think rather than when they are going in the same direction.

For example, are you 200% sure of your sentence "The only issue with consumer roof-top solar is that it is the most expensive form of power ever created"? Is that true everywhere, all the time? Because if not, how is that not as much as "misleading or false statements" than the original sentence you quote? But of course, this sentence of yours does not strike you as misleading, because you truly believe it's not misleading.

Also, while I don't think the anti-nuclear are less numerous or less idiot, the pro-nuclear usually are also very very prone to think they are smarter when they are not, and start using bullying method to "fight the infidels", which, at least in my circle which are neutral, is really starting to make that side looks bad.

[opo]

>I think it's just easier to notice "misleading or false statements" when they contradict what we like to think rather than when they are going in the same direction.

That is likely true, but what is your point? The statement I said was false and misleading was in the message that started this thread:

>After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.

Are you saying that was a true statement?

>For example, are you 200% sure of your sentence "The only issue with consumer roof-top solar is that it is the most expensive form of power ever created"? Is that true everywhere, all the time? Because if not, how is that not as much as "misleading or false statements" than the original sentence you quote? But of course, this sentence of yours does not strike you as misleading, because you truly believe it's not misleading.

This sort of incessant questioning is a form of sealioning. I guess I could have been more clear I meant that the obvious energy policy issue with consumer rooftop solar is that it is the most expensive form of power thus it has been given huge subsidies. (The money used for such subsidies is not unlimited and this money is fungible - obviously a dollar going to subsidize an extremely expensive rooftop solar installation could have gone much, much farther if it had gone to support a utility grade solar installation.) I think a charitable reading of my sentence would have understood what I meant.

[Gwypaas]

>> After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor.

> Are you saying that was a true statement?

As the op, yes. See:

The limited liability vs Fukushima cost of at least $150B.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

And this review of the economics by DIW berlin.

> According to “numerous scientific studies,” none of the world’s more than 600 nuclear power stations have ever been economically viable, and the plants could only be operated for years due to government subsidies, the institute claims.

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/-nuclear-has-never-b...

[cauch]

> That is likely true, but what is your point? The statement I said was false and misleading was in the message that started this thread

You realize the part I was quoting started with "I rarely see that here".

Obviously, my sentence was not "the element that you say is incorrect is in fact correct" but rather "that is not a surprise that you notice incorrect element when they are saying something you don't like". This second part recognizes that the element may be incorrect. The point is when you say "I rarely see that here": your impressions have no value, they do not correspond to any reality.

> Are you saying that was a true statement?

I am saying that it is not a worst statement as the one of yours I've quoted. The problem of the statement you quoted is that it is open to interpretation: what is "built", what is "economic", what is "traditional".

Of course, you will pretend it is "false" because you will find one exception, or you will say "it's economic without the artificial extra costs that I have arbitrarily decided are the results of baddies because I don't like them"

I personally think this sentence is bad because it's way too imprecise and generalist. I think only idiots will think it is "false", and only idiots will think it is "true", the reality is that this sentence cannot be called "true" or "false" as it is true to some extend and false to some extend.

> This sort of incessant questioning is a form of sealioning.

Once again you miss the point. I don't care if your statement is true or not, or precise or not. My point is that you are blaming someone for not doing what you don't do yourself.

Your sentence was, according to your own standard (not mine, YOURS), objectively pretty bad (which is not the same as "incorrect"):

1) "the ONLY issue" is obviously highly debatable, as what is an issue for someone may not be an issue for someone else (or be a "small issue"), and it highly depends of the objective and what people care about

2) "the most expensive form of power EVER CREATED". This is technically 100% incorrect: it is totally unreasonable to pretend that modern solar is a more expensive form of power than the form of power used one or two centuries ago. Of course, you can answer "it's obviously not what I mean", but I know that and I don't say you have made a mistake, what I'm saying is that you are the one reacting to such approximations if they are "anti-nuclear".

3) "the MOST EXPENSIVE". Again, while it can be true, it is not at all trivial and even "decidable". In a parallel thread, you admit yourself that you take the "average", which is a very very bad reasoning: if a country decided to build a series of crap nuclear plant with turbines of sub-par efficiency, according to you, it would objectively mean that the nuclear power will intrinsically be worse. A better metric instead of the average would be to take the minimum: it corresponds to the real potential of the technology, probably ignoring old technology (so it is also a good thing to do for nuclear) (sure, there may be circumstantial effect, but at first order, they exist in all the forms, so it's fair. While it is not perfect, it is anyway already way better than taking the average). If we do that, solar power is better than nuclear power. And this is only with the US numbers, but you can easily decompose by state and cherry-pick the ones going in one way or another, or add other countries in the world. It scientifically does not make sense, the numbers that you use cannot answer the question of knowing if the form of power is "more expensive" or not in a debate about future decision, especially when they are all so close.

4) the fact that the sentence is a very naive generalization.

Again, let's be clear: I'm not criticizing you for your statement, or saying your statement is incorrect.

What I'm saying is that someone would have behave exactly like you, would have written exactly the same kind of statement, would have been as clear and precise, but it would have been anti-nuclear and you would have said "yet another example of anti-nuclear being lying or misleading".

> I think a charitable reading of my sentence would have understood what I meant.

This is a good summary: you are asking people to be charitable when reading your sentence and try to understand what you mean by refitting the terms to make sure the sentence is true, but you don't do that to others.

As I've said, the statement that you are saying is a lie is true "in some extend", and, if you really believe in what you've said to me, you should just be charitable and understand what they mean in order to refit the terms so that this sentence is true.

[rewmie]

> (...) consumer roof-top solar is that it is the most expensive form of power ever created (...)

Care to show the basis of your personal assertion? It's an extraordinary and unbelievable claim.

[opo]

This is not my assertion and has been covered in discussions on this web site for a long time.

>Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 147 and 221 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

The latest report from Lazard on LCOE also gives similar numbers:

https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april...

It would be extraordinary if these one-off rooftop solar photovoltaic installations would be low cost. They are more dangerous to install than ground based solar farms and much more costly - the real question is why are they so heavily subsidized? It really is sort of a reverse Robinhood scenario where less well off consumers subsidize their wealthier neighbors.

[rewmie]

> The latest report from Lazard on LCOE also gives similar numbers:

I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited.

In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141.

Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case) and it points to unsubsidized costs.

If I get a quote from a rooftop vendor that sells gold plated PV panels to install in a cave, that does not mean that residential PV panels have an expensive energy cost.

[opo]

>I'm not convinced you read the doc you cited.

I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

>In it, it clearly states that the levelized cost of energy for solar PV rooftop residential ranges from $115/MWH while gas peaking is $114/MWH and nuclear is $141.

You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

$117 to $282 Rooftop residential $115 to $221 Gas Peaking $141 to $221 Nuclear

If you take the average from the range, the most expensive is rooftop solar. As the Statista web site states:

>Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States.

The LCOE of course also undercounts some of the costs associated with consumer rooftop solar. There is real value in having an energy source that isn’t so intermittent. With a low capacity factor, you need to spend money to deal with that. This might be through adding new power lines to bring in power from somewhere else, over building, adding gas peakers, adding energy storage etc. Obviously none of this is free and none of these extra costs are included as part of the LCOE of solar. You can see some estimates of this on page 11 of the report.

>Your source also states quite clearly that these costs depend on the circumstances (i.e., each case is a case)

Yes that is why there is a range. But if your point is that sometimes rooftop solar won’t be the most expensive form of power, that seems like moving the goal posts from your original response:

>>Care to show the basis of your personal assertion? It's an extraordinary and unbelievable claim.

>...and it points to unsubsidized costs.

Yes, that was actually my point. The real question is why is consumer rooftop solar so heavily subsidized? It really is sort of a reverse Robinhood scenario where less well off consumers subsidize their wealthier neighbors. The money available for energy subsidies is not unlimited and this money is fungible. A dollar going to subsidize an extremely expensive rooftop solar installation could have gone much, much farther if it had gone to support a utility grade solar installation.

>If I get a quote from a rooftop vendor that sells gold plated PV panels to install in a cave, that does not mean that residential PV panels have an expensive energy cost.

That isn’t the right way to look at LCOE. Here is some background info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

[rewmie]

> I guess I should point out these kind of insults are against the site guidelines.

It's not an insult. It's a clear reference to the fact that your source does not support your claim, and it actually rejects it.

> You are quoting the lowest value in each range, you need to consider the entire range:

I'm actually not. If you read the source you cited, you'll notice that they provide a range of values for their estimates of what would be the levelized cost for energy from multiple sources.

The observed real world cases fall within the whole range. This means that they report real world examples of residential rooftop PV panels costing well below alternatives such as Nuclear.

If your thesis was that residential rooftop PV panels were the most expensive source of energy, your own reference refutes your baseless claim. You have to intentionally ignore all the cheapest real world examples of PV installations to proceed to argue they are the most expensive.

If you insist in arguing about statistical nonsense such as "I can find a PV panel that is both terribly expensive and generates no energy at all" then go right ahead, but cherrypicking that as your absolute reference would be disingenuous.

> Yes that is why there is a range.

The range does not exist so that people could lie and misrepresent the data. If the range covers examples of residential PV panels generating cheaper energy than nuclear or even gas, you should not discard them either because you either failed to read the data or tried to misrepresent it.

[pyrale]

> However I only really see nuclear proponents (and those of fossil fuels) attacking renewables.

The reverse is pretty much true too. It seems like both renewables and nuclear proponents should be taking turns bashing fossil fuels, but since both see each other as a competitor for "the future of power", that's where the banter goes.

> And I only really see fossil fuel and nuclear proponents making widespread demonstrably false statements.

You don't have to go further than this thread to find false statements about nuclear.