Old data. EDF was forced to sell electricty to middle men at a loss by the previous antinuclear administration. With the regulatory rules having been changed EDF has made a profit the last couple of years without increasing costs to consumers.

Both. I choose both! Nuclear is clean. That's the entire point of it you DF!

Clearly Psychological Projection from an antinuclear zealot.

How many countries have deep decarbonized their grids with just solar and wind? Wait it's zero! Looks like we will need nuclear after all!

Everything you antinuclear scumbags say is a lie. Please tell me again about how bout the "waste" is even though it has a total kill count of zero. Or tell me how expensive it even though grids with nuclear pay less in energy costs. Maybe you can provide one example of a country or state that has deep decarbonized with just solar and wind? No. Of course not.

You antinuclear scumbags always have to lie don't you!

Used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant) has a total kill count of zero. Yet it is treated as some kind of gotcha by the fossil fuel industry and their allies in the antinuclear movement.

Natural gas baseload would actually be cheaper (allthough dirtier). With peaking prices methane companies can charge whatever they want. Sometimes 50 cents a kWh. Sometimes more. That's where the price increase comes from.

490 g CO2 per kWh. In order to deep decarbonize we need our entire grid to be below 50, perferably below 30, We can't do that if we burn methane every single night.

Because in the real world methane(natural gas) is tied to solar and wind. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Not long term, and not for the consumer either. Renewables paired with methane is significantly more expensive for the consumer than nuclear.

The amount of materials required for nuclear is significantly less than for any other energy sources. See energy density.

Demand from A.I. companies is significant. Also renewables are intermittent. So they are paired with peaking methane which is extremely expensive and dirty. Having to rely on peaking electricity every single night drives up electricity costs significantly.

If we want to lower pollution and costs we need to build new nuclear energy. Yes, nuclear. The high upfront cost of a nuclear power plant is more than made up for in the long run with low operation costs, low fuel costs, and an extremely long lifetime(80+years). Think of it as an investment in the future.

In this case it was luckier than the number 1.

Well it sounds like it isn't much of a problem then. Making the post I was responding to bullshit!

The moon has a two week night. So they would need launch and land two weeks of storage on the moon. So that's 100 kWh *24 *14 = 33,600 kWh. Now try to get that on the moon. It's insane to even suggest that!

Those nuclear power plants already consumer water. And there is plenty of room around the plants for cooling ponds. You're just an antinuclear contrarian.

Nope. RMBK reactors are required for that. DF

Yeah, that's not a real problem. You are citing a couple of plants that shutdown for a week because the water was to warm to release back into the river. It has nothing to do with cooling the reactors. They didn't want to harm the local wildlife. The solution is simple-build a cooling tower. Or even simpler--dig a ditch, fill ditch with water, let water cool, then release cooled water back into the river.

Nuclear works with zero hitches in Arizona. Maybe google Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant before you talk out of your ass. If it can work there, it can work anywhere.

I still haven't used it. Why I am not surprised so many people are willing to let an A.I. do their thinking for them?