> Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot).

There is load-following thermally and load-following electrically. Newer nuclear designs allow for the steam to be diverted and quenched so they don't reach the generators.

Of course this is inefficient, but as you can see in the following link:

* https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply

the Ontario nuclear plants basically run at full-tilt 24/7 to provide base load.

Hydro-electric is also supplying a bunch of base load, so if more nuclear can be built so that it takes up more of that hydro is doing, hydro can then be used in a more variable fashion (so perhaps (nat/methane) gas can be reduced and we have fewer GHGs released).

> It looks to me like they just reflect operating costs on assets that are already paid for, or mostly paid for.

In Ontario there used to be a government-owned utility, Ontario Hydro. They built all the nuclear plants (and everything else).

But at some point things were re-jigged so parts of Ontario Hydro could be privatized (the government still owns shares), but because of how it was broken up its debt could not be split up or given to any of the resulting components.

* https://www.oefc.on.ca/debtmanage.html

So a separate legal entity was created where the debt is now held, and rate payers give money to that corporation to pay off old debt (both nuclear and non-nuclear) as part of their rate.

Also worth noting that the nuclear plants in Ontario are going through a refit currently, so it's not like the plants were built and nothing has done with them except for OpEx; there's a whole bunch of CapEx happening right now (and has been for the last few years):

* https://www.brucepower.com/life-extension-program-mcr-projec...

* https://www.ans.org/news/article-6280/bruce-power-refurbishm...

* https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/darli...

> Ontario is now planning on building another plant. Their own document says it won't pay for itself for 50 years, and that's assuming there are no cost overruns, which is a laughable assumption.

Well the current plants have been running for 4-5 decades and are in the middle of being refurbished to run for another 4-5 decades.

Only paying for itself for the life of the plant is actually a good thing: it means that it is basically being run at-cost with minimal profits being extracted from the public.

It's funny you say that. Renewables are "cheap" precisely because a lot of the labor cost is offloaded to cheap labor countries with low regulations. There is basically no solar panel market outside of China, and that says something. It's a very messy process and benefits largely from China's willingness to not care.

Every single big renewable project is heavily backed by government and subsidies. Wind is big in Germany, because gov pushed it very hard, not because it's naturally competitive.

So far, I see a lot of ideologues pushing the "cheaper" argument even though it hasn't been true at all, and the long-term prospect don't look very good compared to nuclear. But it has more political support, so it is made to be more "competitive" and that's basically all there is to it.

Even residential solar only makes sense when people who install it get paid a lot more than the bulk electricity actually cost, if people had to pay themselves for both panels and storage it is largely a loss compared to regulated market price for electricity in many places in Europe.

I just don't think smrs work without figuring out Lftrs. Because lifters can use almost all the fuel, are inherently meltdown proof, you basically take away the two worst dangers of nuclear.

The issue with degradation of the piping and everything from the molten salts can probably be solved by a replacement cycle.

But to be fair, I have no idea how China's MSR is going

If the EU and US would each commit to build, fund 100+ NPPs over the next years then it would make sense to gear up for a scheme.

Unfortunately each plant is a fucking special snowflake. Due to new sites somehow requiring changes which is absurd, since the containment and everything under it should be 1:1 copy, right? Yes, because the NRC doesn't work like that. Designs are tweaked.

Anyway as you said it's a very expensive bespoke weld and pour festival.

Privatizing electricity in California resulted in massive underinvestment and forest fires as a result of poor maintenance.

Privatization only saves money if you ignore the price paid by surrounding communities.

I would not like to see a fully private nuclear plant.