[mpweiher]

And even that absolutely catastrophic nuclear construction project has a better ROI than any German intermittent renewables. After almost 25 years of renewable subsidies.

Note: catastrophic nuclear is still better than best renewables.

[ViewTrick1002]

Source please. That truly does not make sense given that renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world and renewables are the fastest growing energy source in human history.

In contrast nuclear power is backsliding, and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.

[mpweiher]

> That truly does not make sense

Reality doesn't have to make sense to you.

> renewable subsidies are being phased out around the world

Nope. Countries are trying to phase out renewables subsidies. And failing. Recently, the UK, Denmark and Germany have had offshore-wind sales with exactly zero bids.

> fastest growing energy source in human history.

People love those delicious subsidies.

> In contrast nuclear power is backsliding

Nope.

> and the few projects which get green lit have insanely large subsidies attached.

Only in markets that have been thoroughly distorted by subsidies and other preferential treatment for intermittent renewables.

[ViewTrick1002]

Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water.

I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind.

The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions.

To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies!

Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies.

https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2...

What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables.

So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative.

So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.

[mpweiher]

> Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims.

The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant.

> I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.

And thank you for confirming my point:

>off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet.

Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios.

So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable.

QED.

[ViewTrick1002]

The report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time.

For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the top of their lungs that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy.

But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it.

Any understanding of economy and shilling for nuclear power seems to be a very disjoint set given what we are seeing in this thread.

[mpweiher]

"Interesting" unsubstantiated opinions.

And counterfactual, as nuclear is immensely profitable and the world is investing in nuclear.