If a nuclear reactor was bombed during the war, would the resulting deaths be counted as a nuclear disaster and used as argument against it, or just another war crime? Depends who you ask I'd say.
Does that really matter? The cleanup costs are still socialized.
It is time we move on from the fossil tradition of socialized losses on private profits [1] and instead let the nuclear industry bear their true insurance cost.
Then I suppose nuclear power is also a scam given thant 45% of the capacity in Sweden was out last week and we all know how it went for the French during the energy crisis. [1]
The electricity grid is fundamentally running on marginal cost. How will you force everyone with rooftop solar and home batteries to buy horrendously expensive new built nuclear power when they can supply their own electricity?
I am just correcting misinformation and disinformation.
And no, you suppose incorrectly.
Intermittent renewables are a scam, because they get to privately reap benefits and socialize their costs, particularly their intermittency.
They can be useful, as long as they have to bear the costs of being intermittent. That means at minimum no feed-in priority and no fixed and/or guaranteed feed-in prices. Ideally, they would be required either (a) provide guaranteed power or (b) only be allowed to feed in after all the reliable plants.
This tells me you don't know how a grid works. You do know that the demand is variable right?
With the same reasoning nuclear power is a scam because it can't adapt to the grid demand and forces gas peakers to sit in standby. Socializing the losses, to use your words.
In California the grid shifts between ~15 GW at the minimum and 52 GW at the peak.
When studies have looked at the difference in dispatchable power required comparing majorly renewables or nuclear powered grids when meeting true a grid demand the difference is quite small.
It does favor nuclear power but the differences are not significant in the grand scheme of things when factoring in the absolutely stupid cost for new built western nuclear power.
These studies of course did not take into account 45% of the nuclear fleet being offline, they modeled it based on their average ~85% capacity factor.
Or are you suggesting that we should have peaking nuclear plants to match grid demand? So it isn't a scam for the ratepayers?