A Con Starts with Bad Assumptions
Incidentally, the Russians are the world's largest producer of nuclear energy, and are an export powerhouse when it comes to plants. They have an essentially unlimited amount of gas/oil/coal - and yet are growing their share of nuclear power, just like the Chinese.
Love your writing BF Randall, keep it up.
Do you know if there are any further studies done on the "Full Cost of Electricity" compared to LCOE? I remember seeing a post of yours mentioning it and I read the Texas study about it, but they only described what FCOE would include but there wasn't an actual estimate of FCOE vs LCOE. Some sound numbers of FCOE vs LCOE would be very telling on how expensive renewables are compared to nuclear in the grand scheme.
Excel, supercomputers, erroneous assumptions, dirty/noisy data, modeler bias, publications mills, publish or perish and pal review, grant funding troughs, ignorant journalists and politicians, social media. What could go wrong when you blend them together?!?
Hold that “alchemy” thought. You’ll see why we mention soon.
It occurs to us that you are right. Civilization needs a good lawyer. And the legal framework is clearly there (“Sue and settle” has only worked one way for the most part…. Until now…). This seems a worthwhile area for collaboration between certain like minded people with certain professional backgrounds and certain skills and no lack of courage.
Great article! "Payback is a bitch"
In compliment see:
Total USA EV Adoption Will Only Reduce Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2.5 %
Base data presented by the US EPA and others is self contradictory in their promotion of EVs as a solution to global warming
Volvo vs. Argonne National Labs: Our Institutions Have Been Debased by a Flood of Green Cash
Research careers depend on funding. Follow the $$.
Volvo study is important as it shows GHG payback at "low miles driven" is only attainable in countries like Norway with solely "renewables" generating the electricity.
One thing worth addressing is clean coal tech. If there really is such a thing then it's cost versus acceleration of nuclear adoption should be objectively assessed. The uranium isn't going anywhere and neither is coal. However the complexity of nuclear only benefits from time as improved technologies and methods are developed. Nuclear at scale from here is a massive cost. Not saying that cost isn't inevitable but it might be a net increase to the npv for society as a whole to use clean coal tech and coal first. I have no idea just a hypothesis