Comments by "ChineseKiwi" (@ChineseKiwi) on "Morning Brew" channel.

  1.  @Caliban314 incorrect. The real answer if you actually know grid economics and aren’t just a fanboy is you build stuff where it is geographically the most suitable and thus the generation cost is the cheapest.
    210
  2.  @chop098  the nuclear fanbois will ignore this despite the IEA and even the damn World Nuclear Association saying the dodgy economics in an high interest environment
    84
  3.  @44WillM44  no due to pure cost and lag in time of build. SMRs are still a relative joke and rooftop solar in sunnier places is BY FAR cheaper. Not to mention there is no transmission line upkeep. There’s a reason why data centres use them.
    18
  4.  @gregorymalchuk272  yeah no. Once again, it depends on geography. Rather source the IEA eh.
    7
  5.  @geographicaloddity2  SMRs are a joke. And battery storage literally does load management better and thus why battery storage is currently used for that.
    6
  6.  @Avellar3000  thorium? LOL. I LOOOOOVE how all the nuclear fanbois NEVER look at the total generation cost (which is both capital cost and generation cost). Thorium is an even bigger costly joke due to the capital cost than Gen 4 nuclear.
    6
  7. The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund says hi. It is run separately and deliberate barriers are put up to make it really hard to mess with by politicians
    6
  8. It really isn’t. They wouldn’t function otherwise. This is like saying all plants are bad without stating any nuance. How else are you meant to fund the funds without investing the money?
    6
  9. Good luck with that latency 😂
    3
  10. The mega corps do. Including the very website you are watching this on.
    3
  11.  @Akeruyri  wrong again. Particularly in a high interest environment LOL
    3
  12.  @uhohhotdog  but produces it at a FAR higher cost due to the capital cost. You are aware that the cost of nuclear generation doubles when going from a 4% interest rate to a 10% interest loan right?
    3
  13. If you actually understand how it works, no it isn’t. You probably believe Blackrock owns everything too 😂 (see they don’t and it isn’t even close)
    2
  14.  @basedbulgarian511  Once again, battery are currently not used for that and see above. Too much ignorance.
    2
  15. Unless the workers ARE the investor class like in Australia via (American translated) ‘at least 11.5% ‘401k’ on top of wages’ - 51st in population, collectively 4th largest pension fund in the world. Most workers in Australia indirectly own this very website you are reading this on in reality.
    2
  16. Yes, but that is a defined benefit pension fund and it is different to a sovereign wealth fund. Both are types of investment funds for different purposes.
    2
  17.  @The1Elcil  what are you on about eh
    1
  18. Already done. There are many Data centre heat recycling examples around the world
    1
  19.  @44WillM44  see renewable electricity contracts.
    1
  20.  @bradleywhais7779  No one cares about room. Also do you know what rooftop solar is? It is literally free real estate. Pro nuclear for the science, but my god the ignorant fanbois.
    1
  21.  @DonMedford-vl2yt  you think people are stupid.and haven't calculated all that? The thing it displaces, being fossil fuels, does FAR FAR more. Also ALL power generation is dirty, but it is the degree that counts. Sure, nuclear is the cleanest, but wind and solar are still dirt low.
    1
  22.  @nickford5549  exactly. Someone actually know what batteries are for currently.
    1
  23.  islandhopper100  because we can't replace it fast enough. Dude, China has built 4x as many renewables as coal they last 11 years. They built 4.5x as much solar capacity last year alone. China does not care about Western sentiments. Less insecurity.
    1
  24.  @uselesshero  and someone which are an economical joke currently.
    1
  25.  @drippy_pics9086  only nuclear needs more subsidies LOL. Particularly if you have no economics of scale.
    1
  26.  @KlapUrHanz  yeah, 'prototypes'. Seen it all before. We can't wait for prototypes. Also see cost and time to build.
    1
  27.  @darkgalaxy5548  which cost money. You are aware the biggest part of your bill is the lines right?
    1
  28.  @darkgalaxy5548  doesn’t change the cost blowouts of them. And that’s all that counts.
    1
  29.  @ihavethisnowiguess  good luck with the capital cost.
    1
  30.  @awsomeman253  and they do all the time. Do you think Singapore is a cold barren place? 😂 and no it doesn’t due to capital cost. Ya clueless
    1
  31.  @dragonmaster9817  yeah not that easy. Also see capital cost 😂
    1
  32.  @JagdgeschwaderX  Gas is expensive too. As I said, you always use the cheapest for the geography
    1
  33.  @Azazel-uv3sx  1) transmission lines cost 2) commodity input price cost and dealing with input cost supply contracts Rooftop solar via self use literally bypasses both of these.
    1
  34.  @WE_DONT_LIE  Texas says hi. Go read my most liked post. You build stuff where it geographically makes sense thus lowest cost.
    1
  35.  @Unkn0wn_Legacy9751  yes. Correct. Despite the stereotypes, Texas is strongly pushing forward with renewables. Including solar and makes sense given the geography.
    1
  36.  @kpcarfreak94  deep underground in specialised waste facilities in geographically stable ground beyond groundwater or like in Switzerland, highly secure specialised warehouses. That said, like I’ve said earlier, new nuclear is too costly at the moment due to current high interest rates, and cost and construction time blowouts. And this doesn’t even consider the labour shortage manning them. Homer Simpson has very strong job security. But too many fanboys here (not stating you but others) who in reality dunno shit.
    1
  37.  @Azazel-uv3sx  Rooftop solar says hi. It is literally a reason they are used already for data centres and shopping malls. Nice rant though. (Clowns that go on rants like this but forgot rooftop solar exists is amazing stuff).
    1
  38.  @benaravensfan  it is safe. Chernobyl cannot happen with modern nuclear designs and Fukushima was because they cut 71% of the protective Seawall. Only as I stated, the capital costs is far too expensive in a high interest environment
    1
  39.  @sometf2player752  as I said however, the capital cost in a high interest environment, combined with recent massive delays, makes it economically unviable vs alternatives. Pro nuclear for the science here but unlike the fanboys, I factor in the economics too
    1
  40.  @joeukri9712  no you don’t regarding biomethane. You already have it via agri-waste
    1
  41.  @patrickd9551  land doesn’t matter, economics does. And yet another person who thinks rooftop solar doesn’t exist I.e. literal free real estate. And you forget the saving via self use, and feed in back into the grid via tariffs. Pro nuclear for the science, but tired of the basic fanboys.
    1
  42.  @recoverytwentyforce7290  It isn't a cheap choice anywhere now. There's a reason why many are opting to extend current nuclear than build new.
    1
  43.  @tomswarder4313  lol. let me know where you get the flowing low salt water for cooling the rods - another nuclear fanboi who is actually clueless - there's a damn reason why the the nuclear power plant in the Simpsons' was on a river ROFL - pro nuclear for the science, tired of the fanbois.
    1
  44.  @A-BYTE94  So you think you know more than audited financial reports from energy generation companies and the World Nuclear Association themselves? LOOOOOOOOOOL.
    1
  45.  @A-BYTE94  so yeah, sure, those audited financial reports can lie to shareholders. Oh definitely. Got it fam.
    1
  46.  @A-BYTE94  It's ok to change your opinion based on new information bud.
    1
  47.  @A-BYTE94  sigh - Nuclear is literally the highest capital cost electricity generation infrastructure there is. The generation cost of nuclear triples from a 4% interest rate to a 10% one. Finland’s recent nuclear power plant was 7 years overdue, UK’s Hinkley C will be nearly double the original estimated cost and at least 8 years overdue, the French government in 2012 determined new nuclear power plants there will cost 7x the ones built there in the 1980s *with inflation factored in*, and Sweden’s new ones needs the Bank of Mum and Dad (see very cheap government loans) for it to be viable. And these are in countries with existing nuclear infrastructure thus economies of scale, let alone ones with none. The only ones that are built on time and on budget are South Korean ones, and a strong reason for that is because the South Korean government is deliberately making the energy generation company that operates them, KEPCO, bleed money, as the chaebols want cheap power and exploit their massive political influence. Not to mention good luck finding the labour to run them as Sweden is literally delaying building new ones because of the skilled labour shortage, both in construction and operation. And it is predicted it won’t be solved for at least 5 years.
    1
  48.  @A-BYTE94  after big initial investment - guess what generation cost includes?
    1
  49.  @A-BYTE94  because of the taxation. Try actually looking at it objectively and not fanboying
    1
  50.  @7-tens  cool. Let me know if you know more than audited financial reports of electricity generation companies.
    1