> That was an exceptionally low price, as per the article the other end was $.40 per MWh (actually Euro, but they're trading at better than 1:1 right now). Furthermore, this was excluding storage which more than triples the total price.

Yes. Bringing the total price to almost that of nuclear.

But unlike nuclear -- the price of which increased continuously from the 60s through early 90s while production was the highest it has ever been -- they are both dropping precipitously. So much so that the whole system cost could plausibly be lower than just the steam turbine and heat exchanger component before a new reactor would open (which is already mass produced more than any other production technology).

By all means build nuclear, but do it on a level playing field. Either give 60 year guaranteed prices at 2-4x current market rate, zero risk loans, and free insurance to all zero carbon sources with >90% availability or none.

> But unlike nuclear -- the price of which increased continuously from the 60s through early 90s while production was the highest it has ever been

This is the complete opposite of reality. Nuclear saw it's largest period of growth during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Following the mid 1970s growth tapered off, and higher prices ensued as economies of scale were lost.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

Here's a chart from that paper plotting plant construction vs cost over time. The big cluster of cheap plants in the late 60s and early 70s is what nuclear looks like when economies of scale are leveraged: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03014215163001...

Now you're just gaslighting. That's an initial mild decrease after the first ten or so non experimental reactors followed by an exponential increase as the industry found the myriad ways fission plants could kill everyone around them and added all the safety features advocates are so fond of shoutjng about.

The plants constructed after three mile island don't actually have considerably different designs. The main things dictating a tractor's safety is the design (chiefly, pressurized water reactors versus boiling water reactors) and the existence of secondary containment. All plants have secondary containment in the US. And most, both before and after Three Mile Island, are pressurized water reactors. The designs of nuclear plants didn't change appreciably, but what did was the pace of plant construction. It got smaller, and economies of scale were lost.

If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about. Did plant construction not slow down? You have the history of nuclear plant construction available to you in the previous comment. If you want to make the claim that it was plant designs changing that led to raised costs, then it'd be good to explain how nuclear plants changed.

> It got smaller, and economies of scale were lost.

> If you're going to accuse me of dishonesty, it'd be good to at least try to explain what I lied about.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=2030

You showed a graph of prices which decreased a little with tye first few large scale PWRs, then continuously increasing from late 67 through 72 when construction was at its peak. Then continuing to increase for the second peak of construction start (which was when those first set were just finished).

If what you said was remotely true, then the graph -- which you showed me -- would have its lowest price at the reactors which were permitted aroun '75 and finished around 85.

This is the opposite of what it shows.

You are showing a direct contradiction of your thesis and claiming it somehow proves it. Ergo you are directly lying whilst showing proof you are lying. This is what gaslighting is.

The graph shows a negative, learning rate, a positive correlation between under construction plants and price, a positive correlation between recently finished plants and price, and for the non-demonstration section, a negative economy of scale.

There are reasons outside that graph many of those aren't true due to confounding factors, but that's notwhat you said.