Reply #8: I think that with some people the presentation of numbers is useless.

[NNadir]

I give out numbers all the time here - and I frequently comment of units and the meaning of numbers, but they still don't prevent the repetition of absurd and, frankly, meaningless responses.

I, for instance, have introduced the wide use of the unit exajoule to this thread, and in so doing have repeatedly used it to demonstrate the difference between energy and power. Still, daily we see posts here that herald peak power units for renewable energy that deliberately obscure the reality. So what would be the point of producing yet more numbers?

The fact is that if I buy your numbers - and I don't because mostly my opinion is that you make stuff up - it is easy, as I have shown, that they are not an indication that nuclear energy is expensive but rather are an indication that nuclear power is inexpensive - since they represent 50 years of total cost.

In the days of the global climate change catastrophe, such thinking has been exposed for what it is: Fraudulent. Moreover the anti-nuclear argument has been demonstrated to be fraudulent internationally and has been internationally rejected. Many countries from Mexico to Brazil to Argentina to Great Britain to South Africa to Finland to China to to India to Indonesia to Vietnam to Japan to Saudi Arabia to even the paragon of energy denial - the United States - is seriously evaluating the nuclear energy option. I have been reporting this reality diligently in an attempt to wake everybody up from the fantasy slumbering and daydreaming that have characterized energy thinking, particularly in the United States..

It may be too little too late, but by demonstration, nuclear energy is all we have. There is no serious third option, although there is much silly giggling attempting to prove that there is.