before climate change deniers or antinuclear scumbags ever admit they were wrong.

You must feel real smart arguing definitions. Intel was run by a "finance business guy". Instead of saying "finance business guy" I said MBA. Most people understood what I meant from just that.

They lacked effective leadership when the MBA's wrangled the rains of leadership. That was 2 decades ago. And they cared more about enriching themselves than building the company.

When has Intel innovated recently? They are at least 10 years behind NVidia who released CUDA almost 15 years ago. I said it then that NVidia would overtake Intel. I was laughed at, but I have witnesses.

I understand that MBA is a generic term, but it certainly applies here.

Intel couldn't even name their processors correctly. An i5 could be a new chip or a ten year old one. That's bad marketing from poor leadership.

Intel died the moment the MBA's took over the company. They stopped innovating and actually mocked companies that did. The shutdown profitable sectors of the company citing opportunity costs--and then gave themselves fat bonuses. The couldn't even name their processors correctly anymore.

It's not going to do well unless there is a killer app. Live sports could easily be that app, but Apple still hasn't found out how to do it well. Also it's still too heavy. Way too heavy.

Nope!

And bombing nuclear reactors won't create a nuclear winter. It also won't irradiate us all. You're fearmongering.

Stop the fearmongering.

These results are proof that the renewable only approach has failed.

If we ever want to end our dependency on fossil fuels we will need new nuclear energy.

So get out of the way!

Except we are removing or significantly reducing the amount of interest. One of the strategies employed by China is offering 1% interest on new nuclear projects. It works.

Ultimately, the consumer pays for it. Let's give them the best deal possible.

Actually they only use a single example, Vogtle 3, for their calculations. They don't pull from a multitude of sources. They ignore successful builds by South Korea.

It's also applied incorrectly. You can't compare intermittent sources with firm sources. Even Lazard says that.

There has been a lot of valid criticism of LCOE. That's why a better model, LFSCOE, was developed.

And how about these statistic- Zero countries/states have deep decarbonized with solar and wind. If the 500 billion Germany spent solar and wind went towards new nuclear Germany would have deep decarbonized their grid.

It absolutely reduces costs. DF. If 2/3 of the cost is interest and you remove that cost--you're reducing costs.

The Germans had to invent a word to describe a period of time in which little or no energy can be generated with wind and solar power because it occurred so often--Dunkelflaute!

Again LCOE is a dishonest metric, that is often calculated dishonestly and applied dishonestly. Otherwise they would use the actual lifetime when calculating the LCOE for nuclear. Mark Twain once said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Well LCOE is a statistic.

Yes they have failed. Their electrical grid is dirty. They burn coal and biofuels to overcome solar and wind intermittency. They could have kept their 17 nuclear power plant, but they picked coal instead.