Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Countries are realising they need 'triple the amount' of nuclear energy" video.

Absolutely factually incorrect. In a Thorium reactor you can spin off U233. It is very difficult but can be done. U233 bombs work, they have been tested. Your comment is either ignorant or wilful misinformation. Either read up on the science and retract your comment.
1
@WitchDoctor-m9s Yes this has been factored in. Current solar panel products last up to 30 years as do wind turbine blades and both are almost 100% recyclable. Please please please ask me to provide the data on this.
1
100% correct. There isn’t a LCOE study on the planet (slight exaggeration) that doesn’t have wind and solar electricity generation significantly cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear. Nuclear is clean just ludicrously expensive. And yes the RWNJ will argue dispatch ability and I’m not arguing that. Dispatch ability is another issue, but nothing that can’t be addressed by excess generation.
1
@tbonemc2118 what do you actually know about the federal and state government subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. It’s in the $ billions.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Why 90 years why not 10000 years?
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 I referenced an US energy website that claims 30 years for current manufacturing techniques but I certainly accept your claim that some panels last much less as do much older panels. Yes certainly faulty manufacturing can cause panels to last significantly less. What’s your point? Do you wish me to point out the faulty manufacturing in some nuclear power plants? You’re an ideologue with little understanding of nuance. Nuclear power will obviously contribute to our future energy needs along side renewables, but it will not be cheap. Nothing in the entire history of electricity produced by nuclear has been cheap.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 I won't address the costly federal tax credit scheme that costs the federal government more than it spends on the Army. I'll just concentrate on the $100 million NSW coal innovation fund in my home state. You can read about its objectives yourself. It is a straight out subsidy to the fossil fuel industry.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 What's the running costs of nuclear over 10000000 years?
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Something like 5 cents/kwh.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 in some circumstances solar can get down to $24/MWh compared to nuclear under the same criteria is $141/MWh. Even unsubsidised roof solar is at $117/MWh, still cheaper than Nuc.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Firstly, get off your high horse and lighten up, I was clearly taking the piss. Secondly I have already answered you question with an explicitly clear response. I have avoided nothing. As usual though like the Sith you only deal in absolutes.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 No the infrastructure cost is included in the LCOE. However if you are referring to the cost of new power lines for renewables then yes this is an extra cost, however all the existing infrastructure to support coal power would need to have been maintained/replaced anyway. WTF do you think these structures are a one off build cost and never looked at again? Very naive.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Yes it is. The current infrastructure in place for coal, gas, and hydro all needs to be maintained and eventually replaced. There is no infrastructure existing for any nuclear power. Are you pinning all your bets on this issue, as it is a legitimate concern. Currently in NSW this infrastructure is owned by a mix of private and public. It was once entirely public owned. You have always paid for the construction and maintenance of this infrastructure. The cost of this can be offset by the significantly reduced cost of renewables.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 No I gave you the cost both kWH and mWH from independent LCOE studies all you did was provide an unsubstantiated claim plucked from your arse.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 You don’t read my replies do you. You just go off on your ideological rant. I conceded this 90 replies ago, and explained the current infrastructure required maintenance/replacement anyway. It’s estimated that 10000km of line will need to be built costing $20 billion.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Why didn’t you just reference the IEA joint OECD nuclear energy agency report. It cleary has nuclear energy the cheapest over 90 years, what you missed in that report is they cleary state in black and white the report manipulates the standard LCOE formula to advantage nuclear energy.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 I have answered it three times in specific detail.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Only a simpleton would think with all the variables involved there was only one simple answer. What type of PV cell are you talking about, what systems are you talking about, solar photovoltaic cells, commercial solar, household solar. Your question is absurd be explicit.
1
@Free_willy5 To be believed you will have to provide evidence renewables are worse for the environment than coal or gas. The data simply doesn’t support your ludicrously unsubstantiated claim.
1
@WitchDoctor-m9s From the US energy website. https://www.energy.gov/
1
@WitchDoctor-m9s Are you factoring in the lifespan of coal plants/nuclear plants their maintenance costs, regulatory costs, and decommissioning costs?
1