zlacker

>>Capsta+(OP)
What I never understood was how France gets 70-75% of their electricity from Nuclear, yet their energy prices aren't "too cheap to meter", and while cheaper than their neighbors, don't really raise any eyebrows. Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future?

>>Ecomme+1f
I'm confused. The way you've phrased this certainly doesn't sound like it couldn't be the future.

>>robert+Cf
I've heard for years that if we just had "tons" of Nuclear plants, our energy costs would essentially be too cheap to meter. Yet France is not experiencing this even at 75% Nuclear.

>>Ecomme+ug
Where did you hear that? I've only ever heard about how nuclear is both capital and opex intensive and very expensive.

>>WheatM+lh
It was a common BS claim in the Reagan years, as to why we didn't need to invest in renewables back then. "Why bother, soon all this nuclear energy will basically be free".

This has nothing to do with what anyone actually said. Just ask any 60-something, mild conservative. The meme exists, even though the actual quote was slightly more mealy mouthed.

It was always nonsense anyway. Electricity generation is mostly a deregulated market in most places, so nobody would spend billions on a Nuclear plant that wasn't guaranteed to make back it's money. It was always a thought terminating cliche.