711 pts ยท November 23, 2017
Wrong again, champ. Ive said nothing but the truth, I'm just not interested in your gishgallop. You're projecting again.
It's just a red herring. You continue to argue in bad faith.
No, it's irrelevant to the cost cuts that certain projects seek. You continue to bring it up as some proof to the contrary when in reality
This is coming from the guy who continuously makes false claims and fallacies, then ignores and beckpedals when proven wrong. Funny.
More false dichotomies and fallacies i see?
Yes, the US should invest in more nuclear manufacturing...
Things taken into account in price forecasts, you've offered nothing of value...
You read it wrong then, O&M is *cheaper* than the *cheapest 25%*. I've already stated this. Once again everything you've said is standard
Yes, price projections are complicated and Nuscale takes many of these considerations into account...
Ever interested in having a good faith debate, so I'm not interested arguing with you.
When your goal is to achieve carbon neutrality. But you, from the get go, made false and then acted like dick. I don't believe you were
To cut costs in. We could have talked about how nuclear and other renewables could integrate and how competition between becomes irrelevant
You're the only one not dealing with reality. I ignored you containment building comment because it was irrelevant to what Nuscale seeks
You're a troll.
Reading your 15 post rambling after the first 5 comments made were ignorant, wrong, and easily disproven arguements. You're not patient,
You made easily refuted claims, you ignored what I said and called me liar science denier, then denied such things were true. I stopped
Said is isn't the case. Moving from faulty arguments...
The problem here is you're assuming nuclear has to replace 100% of fossils by itself. It's asinine all or nothing logic that I've already
Current NOAK price puts it 5.9B actually for 1.6GW at 3600/kw... and stupidly cheaper than current US builds at by several thousand.
The US doesn't mass manufacture the way Russia does and certainly doesn't the way Nuscale intends to. Which you continue to ignore. Nuscales
Nuscale is below the avg. cost. Lower than the 25th percentile in cost. O&M most certainly plays a role in overall cost...
Nuclear plants utilize many specially designed parts which nuscale seeks to reduce. Not it wont, less redundancy is needed. And O&M for
Lol, nope, continue to dodge.
Hominems. "YoUr So SmArT" But you don't know shit champ. Take this move on, you precious little idiot.
Lol, holy shit, you're hilarious "kid" you make a bunch fallacy statements, double down, backpeddal. And now you just resort to more ad
No, you just don't know what you're talking about?
The 2050's and even beyond.
In the US nat gas, non electric combustion to clean electric, and continued demand increase provides a massive market moving forward into
A Russian mass manufacturing plant which offers cheaper than conventional products for their designs...
resulting construction savings and cheaper off the shelf products. You continue to prove your ignorance on the topic, as usual...
Wrong again, champ. Ive said nothing but the truth, I'm just not interested in your gishgallop. You're projecting again.
It's just a red herring. You continue to argue in bad faith.
No, it's irrelevant to the cost cuts that certain projects seek. You continue to bring it up as some proof to the contrary when in reality
This is coming from the guy who continuously makes false claims and fallacies, then ignores and beckpedals when proven wrong. Funny.
More false dichotomies and fallacies i see?
Yes, the US should invest in more nuclear manufacturing...
Things taken into account in price forecasts, you've offered nothing of value...
You read it wrong then, O&M is *cheaper* than the *cheapest 25%*. I've already stated this. Once again everything you've said is standard
Yes, price projections are complicated and Nuscale takes many of these considerations into account...
Ever interested in having a good faith debate, so I'm not interested arguing with you.
When your goal is to achieve carbon neutrality. But you, from the get go, made false and then acted like dick. I don't believe you were
To cut costs in. We could have talked about how nuclear and other renewables could integrate and how competition between becomes irrelevant
You're the only one not dealing with reality. I ignored you containment building comment because it was irrelevant to what Nuscale seeks
You're a troll.
Reading your 15 post rambling after the first 5 comments made were ignorant, wrong, and easily disproven arguements. You're not patient,
You made easily refuted claims, you ignored what I said and called me liar science denier, then denied such things were true. I stopped
Said is isn't the case. Moving from faulty arguments...
The problem here is you're assuming nuclear has to replace 100% of fossils by itself. It's asinine all or nothing logic that I've already
Current NOAK price puts it 5.9B actually for 1.6GW at 3600/kw... and stupidly cheaper than current US builds at by several thousand.
The US doesn't mass manufacture the way Russia does and certainly doesn't the way Nuscale intends to. Which you continue to ignore. Nuscales
Nuscale is below the avg. cost. Lower than the 25th percentile in cost. O&M most certainly plays a role in overall cost...
Nuclear plants utilize many specially designed parts which nuscale seeks to reduce. Not it wont, less redundancy is needed. And O&M for
Lol, nope, continue to dodge.
Hominems. "YoUr So SmArT" But you don't know shit champ. Take this move on, you precious little idiot.
Lol, holy shit, you're hilarious "kid" you make a bunch fallacy statements, double down, backpeddal. And now you just resort to more ad
No, you just don't know what you're talking about?
The 2050's and even beyond.
In the US nat gas, non electric combustion to clean electric, and continued demand increase provides a massive market moving forward into
A Russian mass manufacturing plant which offers cheaper than conventional products for their designs...
resulting construction savings and cheaper off the shelf products. You continue to prove your ignorance on the topic, as usual...