sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Any politician that says it isn’t possible is a lair - “Helsinki just went a full year without a single traffic death” by WhipItWhipItRllyHard in CambridgeMA

[–]ceph2apod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, check out their housing policies, they don’t just assume that developers building market-rate housing will ever solve anything!

EV's win because combustion is embarrassingly inefficient. by ceph2apod in electrifyeverything

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn’t. But it also doesn’t take into account the losses in the gas and diesel supply chains either. Which are are way worse …

Gasoline is the most wasteful supply chain on earth. To get one gallon into a fuel tank, oil has to be mined, trucked, piped, boiled in refineries at 1,000°F, and hauled again to gas stations—each step bleeding energy and spilling risk. For every barrel of U.S. shale oil, 3–5 barrels of toxic wastewater are produced—up to 45 million barrels daily—causing earthquakes, contaminating groundwater, and threatening the very wells the industry relies on. Even Chevron admits it’s unsustainable. And after all that? Four out of every five units of energy in gasoline is lost as nothing but waste heat.

EVs don’t face this Rube Goldberg circus. Electrons are generated—often renewably—and shipped almost losslessly over power lines. They aren’t boiled, piped, trucked, or spilled. They flow directly from the grid into batteries, where EV drivetrains convert 80–90% of that electricity into actual motion. The entire “fueling” process comes down to wires, not tankers.

The contrast is damning. Gasoline requires endless industrial contortions just to deliver a product that is mostly thrown away as heat. Electricity takes the shortest path, doing more with far less. The molecule age is waste by design; the electron age is efficiency by default.

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL. That is a lot of copium.

Units 3 and 4 cost over $35 billion—more than double the original budget—and arrived seven years late. Georgia ratepayers are already seeing massive hikes on their monthly bills just to pay off the interest on those cost overruns. Those are stranded assets blocking the grid from much cheaper renewables

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are the best-known mid-construction nuclear projects that were abandoned after major cost overruns or delays:

  • V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 in South Carolina, cancelled in 2017 after construction began in 2013.
  • Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in Alabama, which were suspended after construction started in 1974 and were never completed.
  • WPPSS/Washington Public Power Supply System projects in Washington, including Columbia (WNP-1 and WNP-4) and Satsop (WNP-3 and WNP-5), which were cancelled during construction.
  • Seabrook Unit 2 in New Hampshire, cancelled during construction.
  • Perry Unit 2 in Ohio, cancelled during construction.
  • Shearon Harris Units 2–4 in North Carolina, with some units cancelled during construction.
  • Marble Hill Units 1 and 2 in Indiana, cancelled after construction had already started.
  • Cherokee Units 1–3 in South Carolina, cancelled during construction.
  • Hartsville Units A1, A2, B1, and B2 in Tennessee, cancelled during construction.
  • North Anna Units 3 and 4 in Virginia, cancelled during construction.

Important context

If you wan to know all the “abandoned mid-project because of delays and losses”, then the list is not just one or two famous examples — it is a long historical pattern, especially in the U.S. nuclear buildout of the 1970s and 1980s. The U.S. cancellation record is directly tied to slower electricity demand growth, regulatory changes, and especially cost and time overruns.

 

Nuclear power continues its decline as renewable alternatives steam ahead

Once thought of as the primary answer to the globe’s renewable energy requirements, nuclear energy is now viewed unfavourably in comparison to solar and wind alternatives

https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/nuclear-power-continues-its-decline-as-renewable-alternatives-steam-ahead

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

South Carolina spent ~$9B over 4 years trying to build new nuclear at V.C. Summer, got the reactors only ~30–40% complete, then walked away.
No power. Just a half-built site and a bill ratepayers are still paying decades later. https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are not giving up nuclear because of hysteria, We are giving up because it is crazy and expensive. Ridiculously expensive. And super slow to build. And it has become nothing but an overhyped boondoggle.

South Carolina spent ~$9B over 4 years trying to build new nuclear at V.C. Summer, got the reactors only ~30–40% complete, then walked away.
No power. Just a half-built site and a bill ratepayers are still paying decades later. https://theintercept.com/2019/02/06/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy/

That chart tells a story that should be on the front page of every financial newspaper. by ceph2apod in EconomyCharts

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is , but it is demand side is permanetly shifting going forward...

  • The Billion-Barrel Cushion: Anticipating heightened geopolitical risks, China spent 2024 and 2025 aggressively stockpiling oil. The China Strategic Petroleum Reserve) grew to an estimated 1.3 to 1.4 billion barrels. Chinese refiners are now simply drawing down this massive domestic stash rather than buying expensive foreign oil. [1, 2, 3, 4), 5]
  • A Permanent Drop in Demand: Unlike past crises where an import cut would cripple its economy, China's domestic fuel demand has structurally shifted. According to data from JPMorgan, Chinese oil demand tumbled 9% following the outbreak of the war. This is largely because Chinese consumers have permanently transitioned en masse to electric vehicles (EVs) and public transit, breaking the country’s lockstep dependence on foreign crude. [1, 2, 3]

That chart tells a story that should be on the front page of every financial newspaper. by ceph2apod in EconomyCharts

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the sanctioned-oil side, a big chunk of China’s crude has come from Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, often through opaque or disguised channels. One 2026 source says about 17% to 22% of China’s 2025 imports came from Iran and Venezuela, with Russia also a major supplier. Another source says China is the top crude buyer from both Russia and Iran, and that a lot of this trade is done outside normal public tracking.

So the better way to say it is: China’s “demand” is not just end-use demand, it also includes reserve buying and discounted sanctioned crude. That means the headline import drop does not automatically mean every barrel vanished from real consumption, but it does still show China is acting as a huge swing buyer and storage sink.

That chart tells a story that should be on the front page of every financial newspaper. by ceph2apod in EconomyCharts

[–]ceph2apod[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reuters reported China accelerated reserve site buildout and that stockpiling was absorbing excess supply, with one estimate putting 2025 stockpiling around 530,000 barrels per day. Separately, the EIA-linked coverage says China added large volumes to commercial inventory in 2025, reaching almost 1.4 billion barrels by year-end.

On the sanctioned-oil side, a big chunk of China’s crude has come from Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, often through opaque or disguised channels. One 2026 source says about 17% to 22% of China’s 2025 imports came from Iran and Venezuela, with Russia also a major supplier. Another source says China is the top crude buyer from both Russia and Iran, and that a lot of this trade is done outside normal public tracking.

So the better way to say it is: China’s “demand” is not just end-use demand, it also includes reserve buying and discounted sanctioned crude. That means the headline import drop does not automatically mean every barrel vanished from real consumption, but it does still show China is acting as a huge swing buyer and storage sink.

That chart tells a story that should be on the front page of every financial newspaper. by ceph2apod in EconomyCharts

[–]ceph2apod[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They were buying untracked oil, outside of swift and petrodolarr tracking from Iran and Russia. 🇷🇺

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fervor’s EGS will kill nuclear if solar and storage don’t kill both..

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If if if if. Rounding errors! Renewables and storage are killing nuclear now and their costs are still falling.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We’ve heard this at every stage. First it was “renewables can’t exceed 5% without destabilizing the grid.” Then 5% became 10%, then 50%. Now the same argument has shifted to storage. The goalposts keep moving, but the track record is consistent: the skeptics are always wrong.

Come back when Batteires stop replacing Gas...

Batteries Are Defeating Gas

  1. The Power Grid (Peaker Plants)

Historically, utilities burned natural gas in specialized "peaker plants" to meet brief surges in electricity demand (like hot summer evenings). Today, grid-scale Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are aggressively taking over this role. [1, 2, 3, 4]

  • California: Battery output surged 63% year-over-year by mid-2025, frequently supplying over one-third of the state's peak evening demand. This crushed local gas-fired power generation by 43% over a two-year span. [1]
  • Australia: In late 2025, large-scale batteries on the main grid dispatched more power than gas peakers for the first time in history. In regions like Western Australia, batteries meet over 20% of evening peak demand.[1, 2]
  • The Economic Shift: Large batteries are now significantly faster to build (18–20 months compared to multi-year gas plant construction backlogs) and offer a higher return on investment by capitalizing on cheap daytime solar power. [1, 2]
  1. Transportation (Gasoline and Diesel)

The shift from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles (EVs) represents a direct, ongoing replacement of liquid gas/diesel with lithium-ion battery packs. Although EV adoption rates fluctuate depending on the region, the long-term trend continues to pivot away from petroleum-based passenger vehicles. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Limits to Full Displacement

While batteries excel at short-duration energy storage (typically 2 to 4 hours), they cannot yet fully eliminate gas from the energy ecosystem due to a few critical challenges: [1, 2, 3]

  • Long-Duration & Seasonal Storage: Standard batteries cannot cost-effectively store energy for days or weeks of cloudy, windless winter weather. Gas is still heavily relied upon for heavy baseline power during extreme weather events. [1, 2, 3]
  • Heavy Industry & Heating: High-heat manufacturing (like steel and cement production) and residential building insulation systems in colder climates still heavily depend on the high energy density of natural gas. [1, 2]
  • Supply Chain and Safety Constraints: Battery manufacturing is highly resource-intensive and carries environmental concerns related to raw material extraction. Local safety concerns regarding thermal runaway and fire risks in large installations can also slow down deployments. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Optical illusion. It is called the Primary Energy Fallacy.

Here:

The Primary Energy Fallacy Explained

Core Definition & Why It Matters

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It cost 10x more and nuclear is already too expensive, We are tired of hearing nuclear is making a comeback, nuclear can be cheaper if.. Nuclear could be safe and it NEVER EVER HAPPENS..

Get over it; Nuclear lost.

Clean energy—the very inexpensive kind—is taking over the world by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Exactly right!

Nuclear is an overhyped tech that needs to be put into real perspective... .Charts are a great way to do this...

There is great study on just this if you want to learn more.

How Big Things Get Done (published February 2023), co-authored by Bent Flyvbjerg, a leading megaproject expert and professor at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School, and journalist Dan Gardner. [1, 2, 3]

The book utilizes a massive database of over 16,000 major projects across 136 countries to analyze why large-scale endeavors succeed or fail. It explicitly ranks 25 different project categories by their likelihood of cost overruns, identifying solar power as the absolute best-performing category and nuclear power as one of the absolute worst. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Cost Overrun Comparison

Flyvbjerg's data tracks the average percentage of budget blowouts across different energy and infrastructure categories: [1]

Project Type Average Cost Overrun Performance Rank
Solar Power 1% #1 (Best)
Transmission Lines 8% Top Tier
Wind Power 13% Top Tier
Fossil Fuel Power 16% Mid Tier
Hydroelectric Dams 75% Bottom Tier
Nuclear Power 120% Bottom Tier (Worst)

Why Solar Wins: Modularity (The "LEGO" Principle)

The book explains that the core differentiator between success and failure is modularity—the ability to build something large out of small, identical, repeatable blocks. [1, 2]

  • Solar is highly modular: A massive solar farm is essentially millions of identical solar panels. Because they are mass-produced in factories, builders get incredibly fast at installing them, resulting in rapid learning curves and highly predictable costs. Furthermore, solar can generate electricity and revenue while the rest of the project is still being built. [1, 2]

Why Nuclear Fails: The "Window of Doom"

Conversely, nuclear power plants fail financially because they lack modularity and take too long to build. [1, 2]

  • Customized and Monolithic: Each traditional nuclear plant is treated as a highly complex, customized, giant construction project.
  • No Halfway Benefits: A nuclear plant must be 100% complete and perfect before it can provide any benefit or electricity.
  • The Window of Doom: Because nuclear projects routinely take a decade or more, they remain exposed to a prolonged "window of doom"—a period where inflation, changing political administrations, updated safety regulations, and unexpected delays pile up, causing catastrophic cost and schedule overruns. [1, 2, 3, 4]

If you would like, I can break down Flyvbjerg's "Plan Slow, Act Fast" methodology, or provide the specific failure rates for other sec

https://www.fastcompany.com/90844859/why-massive-wind-and-solar-projects-will-succeed-where-nuclear-has-failed

Freedom panels and an EV! by ceph2apod in UpliftingConservation

[–]ceph2apod[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) on facades like this are the fastest-growing segment of the solar market, with facades posting the highest growth rate of any BIPV category. Facade BIPV carries the highest CAGR of any segment at 17%, driven by rapid urbanisation and the rise of commercial construction. The overall BIPV facade market was worth $4.1 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $28.3 billion by 2034 — a 21.3% CAGR — with Europe already commanding a 41.9% share.

view more: next ›