1/3. Why "new"? We were talking about OLD power plants. The coal plants which Duke Energy is shutting down were built long ago, and were cheap to run. My local nuclear plant has also been there a long time, and it's very cheap to run. https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf#page=5… https://sealevel.info/Lazard_LCOE_ver16p0_2023-04_annot1.png…

New LCOE per Lazard (similar to EIA) Nuke: $141-221/MWH Coal: $68-166/MWH (inclusive of Clean Air Act compliance cost) Gas CC: $39-101/MWH Nukes are not allowed to run during hurricanes, per license LCO. No plant can run with a disrupted grid.

The claim that wind and solar energy are less expensive than electricity from dispatchable sources like fossil fuels is false. It's a product of either economic illiteracy or deliberate deception by the renewable energy marketers, because it confuses price with total cost. You've probably heard the old saying that there's nothing more expensive than a free puppy, except a free boat. Wind and solar energy are like that: it's not their price which makes them costly. The reason average wind and solar electricity prices are low is they tend to produce power when it is not needed. Power produced when it isn't needed fetches low prices. But it's the converse which is the big problem with wind and solar: they very often do not produce power when it is needed. That unreliability causes enormous spikes in electricity prices. During those price spikes most of the electricity being produced is generated by fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Wind and solar apologists pretend that means electricity from fossil fuels and nuclear plants is expensive. But the real reason for the high prices is replacement of reliable fossil fuel and nuclear plants with unreliable wind and solar. Exorbitant electricity prices are an inevitable cost of reliance on wind and solar for electricity. Fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity generation is said to be "dispatchable," because their electricity production can be ramped up ("dispatched") to meet demand. Wind & solar output cannot be ramped up to meet demand, so increased reliance on wind and solar means increasingly unreliable electricity production. When demand increases and/or the wind dies, reliance on wind and solar causes enormous spikes in the price of electricity — or, in extreme cases, even brownouts and blackouts. The inevitable consequences of increasing reliance on wind and solar "renewables" are rising electricity prices and worsening grid reliability — and absolutely no environmental benefit. That's right: the punch line is that it's all for naught. The rationale for the immensely destructive transition to wind and solar is to "fight climate change." But that's a fool's errand, because the "climate crisis" is a marketing ploy. It's not real, it's just "FUD." The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are highly beneficial, rather than harmful. Does that surprise you? If so, it means you're not getting balanced information. But I'm here to help: https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html That webpage has: ● accurate introductory climatology info ● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists ● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides ● info about climate impacts ● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides