The goal of making nuclear cheaper isn’t to lower consumer costs. It’s to displace CO2 emitting baseload sources like coal and gas.

chermi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why not not both?

Sure, but one comes first.

And it's going to end up being price.

	▲	theptip 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.

ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or you know, build renewables and storage which has in recent years reduced Californias fossil gas dependency by 40%.

“All of the above” seems a good approach. If this is an existential crisis, why would we not hedge our bets?

(Not everywhere has good sun for solar.)

	▲	ViewTrick1002 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That is what we did 20 years ago when the renewable industry barely existed. What has happened since is that the nuclear industry essentially collapsed given the outcome of Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville and Hinkley Point C and can't build new plants while renewables and storage are delivering over 90% of new capacity in the US. Being the cheapest energy source in human history. We've gone past the "throw stuff at the wall" phase, now we know what sticks and that is renewables and storage. The places with worse sun conditions tend to have amazing wind resources. Or be such a tiny niche that caring about them is irrelevant, like the few people living in the wind kill of the arctic high north of the polar circle.
	▲	s1mplicissimus 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Solar is not the only alternative. Tidal, river flow, reservoir, wind, thermal come to mind in terms of renewables.

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]