Then trying to justify it with paid off nuclear plants.

So it will be profitable sometime in 2060? Until then we should just persist with horrifyingly expensive electricity as they get paid off?

That sounds like a lunatic talking.

There’s no feed in priority. Renewables just bid zero which is their marginal cost. Nuclear power bids negative until prices are so low for so long that they withdraw from the grid.

You can try to force nuclear costs on the consumers but that will only lead to an explosion of rooftop solar and home storage.

I also love how everything becomes ”FOAK” when you need to justify the boondoggles.

Apparently reactor 5 and 6 of the EPR line is now ”First of a Kind”. That does not seem very logical to me.

You know that nuclear power as a share of the Chinese grid is backsliding? They also keep pushing their targets further into the future and lowering them.

And South Korea then withdrew from all other bids in Europe after the settlement with Westinghouse.

The Polish AP-1000 lands somewhere around €180/MWh when considering all costs and subsidies.

Then you blather on about FOAK while making it blindingly obvious that you are in over your head. You do know that we have research on it rather than you making up ”facts”?

> If you look at the data specifically you're going to find learning but for that there's a several requirements:

> - It has to be the same site

> - It has to be the same constructor

> - It has to be at least two years of of gap between one construction to the next

> - It has to be constant labor laws

> - It has to be a constant regulatory regime

> When you add these five you only get like four or five examples in the world.

From a nuclear energy professor at MIT in the Decouple nuclear power industry podcast, giving an overly positive but still sober image regarding the nuclear industry as it exists today.

But that is something a trillion dollars in a handout will fix! Any day now! They'll start paying it back.... never!

Insanity.