| ▲ | dalyons 5 hours ago |
| Cheap-er, not cheap. They’re still fundamentally massive complicated constructions. They will never be as amenable to mass production cost reductions as things like solar and battery |
|
| ▲ | colechristensen 5 hours ago | parent [-] |
| >Cheap-er, not cheap. Can we please not have these "slightly improved language" comments? You're arguing against something I didn't say and making a meaningless nitpick on word choice. |
| |
| ▲ | hcknwscommenter 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | you literally said "cheap" and the comment said "cheap-er not cheap". I think the comment is correct and you are wrong. China is building the same design again and again and again. And it's still not cheap. | |
| ▲ | citeitpls 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | tbh i don't think either the original or improved language post is presenting effectively because they both just give a conclusion without any nuance, explanation or support. "cheap" cheaper who cares? $/kwh matter. transmission costs matter. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Who doesn't say nuclear is more expensive? The lowest LCOE for nuclear is to the right of the most expensive solar plus storage. |
|
|
