Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[kristopher]

14. Sorry but that doesn't work.

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

You are locking in the capacity of the nuclear plant, you are not locking in any set amount of capacity with wind.

That means that the nuclear plant (which will probably not be completed for at least 10 years going by EDF's demonstrated recent record) will be entering a market where the demonstrated declining costs of renewables is significantly lower than that being offered today.

Using the proven empty promises of the nuclear construction industry as a basis for comparison against proven delivered performance of the renewables sector is convincing only to nuclear acolytes and the completely uninformed.

Would you like a list of papers detailing the 50 year pattern of failure to perform by the nuclear industry?

As for which gets built being a measure of relative costs, that is pure bullshit. There is a competition for market share going on. The nuclear plant(s) are going to crowd out the lower priced renewables so they WILL NOT get built. That is precisely why the Conservatives are structuring the subsidies for nuclear as they are. Their move will also ensure, for the same reasons, that energy efficiency measures will also be allowed to languish.

ETA: Your desire to promote the OP isn't shared, so I won't be kicking this thread again. What I wrote in my first post is correct, and the clarifications in this one are also correct. Your choice to misconstrue what is written is overt and so sloppily done that I'd probably feel pity for you if your intent wasn't so repugnant.

You've come to remind me of the attempts by Zimmerman's 'knock knock' lawyer to try and discredit the testimony of the young lady on the phone with Treyvon Martin while he was being stalked by Zimmerman.