Whomever has more nuclear power generation will own energy. The cleanest energy is nuclear.

▲ dangoor 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nuclear is clean, but has other drawbacks. "Solar+Storage is so much farther along than you think": https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon...

	▲	godelski 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		This doesn't seem to be passing a sniff test 1) cherry picking the best case. 2) numbers seem off `> The sunniest US city, Las Vegas, could get 98% of its power from solar+storage at a price of $104/MWh, which is higher than gas but cheaper than new coal or nuclear. It could get to 60% solar+storage at $65/MWh — cheaper than gas.` But according to this[0], the US average cost of nuclear is ~$32/MWh (2023). I think the subtle keyword is "new", which could make for a very fuzzy argument. Or maybe prices are different in LV but that's a big differential. It's also mentioning it's the best case scenario for solar. So even then, maybe that's the best option for Las Vegas, but is it elsewhere? World Nuclear also gives us some global numbers to help us see the larger range of costs [1] `> LCOE figures assuming an 85% capacity factor ranged from $27/MWh in Russia to $61/MWh in Japan at a 3% discount rate, from $42/MWh (Russia) to $102/MWh (Slovakia) at a 7% discount rate, and from $57/MWh (Russia) to $146/MWh (Slovakia) at a 10% discount rate.` I don't think this means we shouldn't continue investing in solar and storage, but neither does it suggest taking nuclear off the table. This might be fine for LV or other areas in the Southwest, but unless those costs can be stable for the rest of the country I think we should keep nuclear as an option. We shouldn't forget: it's not "nuclear vs solar" it's "zero carbon emitters vs carbon emitters". The former framing is something big oil and gas want you to argue, and that's why they've historically given funds to initiatives like the Sierra Nevada Club. If we care about the environment or zero emissions then the question isn't as simple as "nuclear vs solar" it is "what is the best zero carbon emitting producer given the constraints of the local region". [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-e... [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

▲ hn_throwaway_99 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everything I've read recently has emphasized that new nuclear installations will have difficulty competing with solar and storage.

Having a non-emitting form of base load is important, and nuclear has a place there, but it many applications it's just not cost competitive with renewables.

▲ Breza a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nuclear power plants certainly have their place, but this is overstating things. If you take the total costs involved in building and operating a nuclear power plant over its lifetime and divide it by the energy produced, you still end up spending a decent chunk of change.

▲ more_corn 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nuclear takes 20 years to build and plants cost $10B.

Rooftop solar starts paying back instantly and can be deployed in $20k tranches. It also requires no additional grid infrastructure and decreases demand on non generating grid infrastructure.

Pretty sure it’s rooftop solar that wins the future.

▲ saubeidl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nuclear fission is more expensive per kilowatt than solar and forces you to go through a lot more trouble to contain risk.

Maybe if fusion was viable, that'll change, but until then nuclear just doesn't make any sense.

	▲	schrodinger a day ago \| parent [-]
		It’s true that new nuclear is more expensive than solar + battery on a per-kWh basis, and the regulatory/compliance overhead is significant. But solar is intermittent, and batteries only solve short-duration gaps—firm, zero-carbon baseload still matters. Existing nuclear is actually quite cost-effective and displacing it often leads to more fossil fuel use. Long-term, we likely need a mix: cheap renewables for bulk energy, and nuclear (or equivalent) for reliability.

▲ jmyeet 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear.

Uranium mining produces significant toxic waste (tailings and raffinates). Fuel processing produces toxic waste, typically UF6. There is some processing of UF6 to UF4 but that doesn't solve the problem and it's not economic anyway. Fuel usage produces even more waste that typically needs to be actively cooled for years or decades before it can be forgotten about in a cave (as nuclear advocates argue).

And then who is going to operate the plant? This administration in particular is pushing for further nuclear deregulation, which is terrifying. You want to see what happens without regulation? Elon Musk's gas turbines in South Memphis with no Clean Air permits that are spewing pollution [1].

That's terrifying because the failure modes for a single nuclear incident are orders of magnitude worse than any other form of power plant. The cleanup from Fukushima requires technologies that don't exist yet, will take decades or centuries and will likely cost ~$1 trillion once its over, if it ever is [2].

And who's going to pay for that? It's not going to be the private operator. In fact, in the US there's laws that limit liability for nuclear accidents. The industry's self-insurance fund would be exhausted many times over by a single Fukushima incident.

And then we get to the hand waving about Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mise Island. "Those are old designs", "the new designs are immune to catastrophic failure" or, my favorite, "Chernobyl was because of mismanagement in the USSR" like there wouldn't be corner-cutting by any private operator in the US.

And let's just gloss over the fact that we've built fewer than 700 nuclear power plants, yet had 3 major incidents, 2 of them (Chernobyl and Fukushima) have had massive negative impacts. The Chernobyl absolute exclusion zone is still 1000 square miles. But anything negative is an outlier that should be ignored, apparently.

And then we get to the impact of carbon emissions in climate change but now we're comparing the entire fossil fuel power industry vs one nuclear plant. It's also a false dichotomy. The future is hydro and solar.

and then we get to the massive boondoggle of nuclear fusion, which I'm not convinced will ever be commercially viable. Energy loss and container destruction from fast neutrons is a fundamental problem that stars don't have because they have gravity and are incredibly large.

I have no idea where this blind faith in nuclear comes from.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/elon-musk-xai-memph...

[2]: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/16/fukushimas-final-costs-...

▲ hardolaf 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Wow. So you really know nothing about the technology and are just spreading fear. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is mostly safe for people now outside of the fact that Russia is current bombing Ukraine.

The issue with cleanup at Fukushima Daichii is one of money and political will, not one of technology. We've had the ability to clean up nuclear accidents since the 1950s.

Also, the future of power is increasingly looking like LNG plants which pump only slightly less radioactive carbon into the atmosphere than coal plants do.

	▲	godelski 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		`> with cleanup at Fukushima Daichii` To add a small note here: the background level of radiation is fairly safe in most of the region. The danger (including in the Chernobyl region) is more about concern of small radioactive particulate. Things like your vegetables in your garden could become deadly because they formed around a hot material that was buried in the ground. Same can happen with rain runoff. These are manageable, but expensive and still take care. You'd still want to arm everyone with a detector and get them to be in the habit of testing their food and water (highly manageable for public water or food).
	▲	jmyeet 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The Chernobyl exclusion zone is relatively safe... to short, limited tours. There are radioactive and toxic particulates all over the place. Things like Cesium-137, which is both radioactive and toxic. Artifacts irradiated in the initial meltodwn and radioactive release (eg vehicles, buildings) remain dangerous to this day, like there are machine graveyards that are absolutely forbidden to entry for safety reasons. > The issue with cleanup at Fukushima Daichii is one of money ... Yes, about a trillion dollars. That's the point. As for technology, I believe the removal of fuel rods and irradiating sand bags has only begun (with robots) in the last year. I don't believe they've fully mapped out what needs to be removed. It's not just the fuel but also the structure, such as the concrete pedestal the reactor was on (and melted through to). Otherwise, you kinda make my point: hand waving away serious and expensive disasters with fervor bordering on the religious to essentially dismiss me as some kind of heretic.
	▲	saubeidl 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Money and political will are in short supply everywhere. Who's to say you'd find it in the US after an accident? And why even bother when solar is cheaper and doesn't come with the same risk?

▲ more_corn 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its astroturfing

▲ barbazoo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I really don't understand HN's love affair with nuclear.

s/HN/Individuals

▲ 7bit 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You obviously have no idea how much destruction it causes to the environment to get the uranium out of the earth. Maybe educate yourself before putting such nonsense into the world.