You just defined yourself. As an independent reader of this...

  1. 5,687 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 454
    You just defined yourself.

    As an independent reader of this site, trust me when I say, you responses are very strange. I see you as a Tim Walz supporter, and i see him wearing a bloody tampon. Numbers are everywhere, yet you will refuse to accept any number that paints nuclear as cost favourable compared to other energy supply systems.

    Speaking of Minnesota

    https://hotcopper.com.au/data/attachments/6496/6496489-095cd7c41680efbe1f52c8df1d9c5d3c.jpg

    7 questions for Tim Walz’s 100% carbon-free energy plan


    It is clear Germany is going backwards with renewables. Here is one of your brethren in Trudeau's Canada comparing the operating costs of various energy producing systems. Look at the total unit cost for nuclear compared to non-efficient wind and solar. Whilst you read these costs, keep in mind on the cost blowouts in transitioning to renewables in Germany and Minnesota.

    https://hotcopper.com.au/data/attachments/6496/6496483-1cec45737ae1fa905872607196b2fade.jpg


    keeping denying nuclear as a cost-effective source of energy. Rusted on old posters like you are a dying breed on HC.
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.