> The problem is that we can’t be wasting money and opportunity cost that could have larger impact decarbonizing
I agree. FULLHEARTEDLY. That is at the very root of my message, isn't it?
> on handouts from tax money to new built nuclear power.
But this is where I disagree. For 2 reasons
1) You don't seem to be applying this same measure to other energy sources like renewables, storage, and so on.
2) "Government money" works differently than "people money". I am not the best person to explain this but I'll summarize what my girlfriend and her dad constantly say, both having PhDs in economics (who teach this stuff and work with governments) "An economist can only tell you how much something costs, not if you should do it or if the results are worth the cost." Like a economist can tell you how much a hospital will cost and how many lives it might save, but at the end of the day they can't tell you if that's the right choice or not.
# Costs
You really should check out the Lazard report[0]. They get pretty detailed.
Jump to page 8 and you'll see a table like this (let's see how well I can format this here lol. Won't look nice on mobile)
Solar (Comm & C&I) $81----------------------$217
Solar (Util) $38----$78
Solar + Stor (Util) $50-------------$131
GeoTherm $66-------$109
Wind (OnShore) $37--------$86
Wind+Stor (On) $44------------$123
Wind (OffShore) $70----------------$157
Gas $108^5 $149-----------------------$251
Nuclear $34^5 $141--$169^6--$200 $228^6
Gas Comb Cyc $31^5 $48-----$107^7-$109
^5: Reflects cot of opperating fully depreciated facilities, includes decommissioning, salvage, restoration
^6: Based on Vogtle nuclear power plant with "learning curve" being ~30% between units 3&4. Based on 70 year lifespan
So there's important things here.
1) *Existing Nuclear* is the cheapest zero-carbon source
2) Vogtle is Lazard's *ONLY* source of data for new nuclear
2.1) Removing the "Learning Curve" costs from Vogtle puts competitive with renewables ($118-$160)
2.2) Including the "Learning Curve" Vogtle is already competitive with rooftop solar
3) (Page 9) Renewable prices are much cheaper thanks to subsidies.
3.1) Solar
$81-$217 --> $51-$178
$38-$78 --> $20-$57
$50-$131 --> $33-$111
3.2) Same for wind but you can look
3.3) *NOTE* Trump is ending subsidies
You're also going to be very interested with pages 19-20 for storage costs. In particular the cost of residential storage.
> The problem is that the setting nuclear power makes sense
This is just not true! You've vastly oversimplified the setting. I'd agree, there's probably no reason for nuclear in the American Southwest. There's lots of sun, lots of open land, and lower environmental impacts. But this isn't true elsewhere. Hydro is great, but you forget that it has pretty heavy environmental impacts as well. You have to create a reservoir, meaning you have to put land under water. Not to mention how it changes the water.
There's no free lunch!
# "[Costs] can't tell you if that's the right choice or not"
And that's the reason I said what I said! You both are vastly oversimplifying things to the point where you think there's one right answer. THERE ISN'T. The whole point of the renewables movement isn't to make cheap electricity, it is *to make the environment better* while still producing the energy we need and at affordable prices. If this was just a price discussion then we wouldn't be where we are and gas and coal would be the cheapest option. *BUT we care about the environment*. Not just the carbon in the air, but the carbon in the ocean, the animals it impacts, the forests and lands (both of which are also a vital part of natural carbon sequestration!), and making the planet a better place not just for humans but all life.
Get out of your internet armchair and go find out what actual experts are saying. Not the dumb science communicators on YouTube. Not the clickbait like "IFuckingLoveScience". Go watch lectures online. Go watch lectures in person! I don't know how to tell you this, but you can straight up email any professor at any university. People respond! Not only that, but you can go sit in on their classes (I'd suggest you ask first, but nobody fucking takes attendance). Go grab actual books (those people will recommend those books to you too!).
Take your passion for arguing on the internet and make sure it is at least equal to the passion you have for learning about the actual subject matter. If your love of arguing is greater than your love of the actual subject then I promise you, you are harming the very community you believe you are fighting for. You can even go ahead and ask those same people I'm requesting you reach out to and I'm sure plenty will tell you the same. I mean for Christ's sake, you got so caught up in me calling you out that you didn't even recognize I called out the person you were arguing with and instead put me into the same bucket! Clearly putting me in the same bucket as mpweiher is a categorical mistake!
[0] https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...