Matt, put some meat 🍖 on the bones and post this on stacker.news you'll get some fat zaps for this

BIGoil plays in this arena 😉

electricity = energy = progress

O uau China 29, how much power is this?

Not a problem at all. Would you like your electric bill to go up 24% to pay for the new nuclear power facility? That's how it works here in America. The cost always gets passed down to the customer/ consumer.

Where doesn't it work like that? Infrastructure comes at a cost. Either the state owns you entirely like in China, or your power bill reflects infrastructure cost like in the US. A middle ground country might just tax everyone more to pay for it. Either way, none of this shit just springs up out of the ground for free. And more providers of efficient energy should lower costs over time, especially if it leads to higher productivity broadly. Humanity needs more energy. Not the same, not less. Energy usage is the only thing separating us from cave men. Less takes us back closer, more pushes us farther away.

If your in America, name a time in your life when your cost per kwh went down..... When was the last time your Electric provider was like "yeah, we could use less profits. Lets help people out by lowering the cost."..... Electric rates have been going up, even with all the advancements, since days of candle light.

My energy bill recently went down. It fluctuates with demand and supply. You know, economics. Putting aside the fact that energy is more than just electricity, and that electricity is generated in multiple ways, there are many factors related to this issue. It isnt as simple as youre trying to make it. More energy in the market will always be better for civilization and economics. So the fuck what if the nominal cost of electricity (inflation is a thing, and it's about kept with inflation in some areas) is higher than a candle? Have you taken a fucking look around to see how much better life is as a result of energy abundance and access?

And you're just ignoring the fact that certain political decisions, such as those related to fuel, play a role in electricity costs. Hindering oil production in the US being an example. Stopping pipelines. Making it harder for ships to transport in goods related to these things using stupid laws. There are so many factors at play that distort economics, usually caused by government or increased demand on an infrastructure or supply that hasn't improved. Hence the need for more efficient energy production (nuclear).

Whatever the cost, it certainly isn't cheaper for us to just do nothing as energy demands increase. That's the most retarded of the options from a civilization standpoint. I'm standing by nuclear in the long run.

You still have fuel (uranium) supply chain constraints with nuclear, but in principle I agree with you.

If your source of energy is at-cost (public power,) all things held equal, your cost of energy should also remain stable. Look at the individual causes of cost increases to ascertain real drivers, and for the majority of them, when you dig deep enough, the cause is rent-seeking #fiat.

💪🏽