Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims. Instead you go on a tangent hoping to muddy the water.

I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

Now you’re trying to paint the entire renewable industry, solar, storage, onshore wind etc. with the paint brush of off-shore wind.

The German and Danish auctions were negative bid auctions.

To explain what that means: companies were asked to pay for the privilege to build off shore wind at a set very low CFD. Those delicious subsidies right?!? Might even call them negative subsidies!

Given recent interest rate hikes and increased cost for construction materials off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Other projects like this one in Germany moves forward without any subsidies.

https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/pressreleases/2...

What you of course don’t mention is that the recent interest rate hikes and increases in construction costs impacts nuclear power far more than off-shore wind and other renewables.

So someone actually knowledgeable in the topic would not promote nuclear power as the alternative.

So again. Please stop lying and misrepresenting cherry picked stats. You know better.

▲

mpweiher a day ago | parent [-]

> Let’s begin with concluding that you could not find a source for your claims.

The source is the report by the French Cour des Comptes. I am not your research assistant.

> I find it interesting how someone so smart can just lie through their teeth.

I find it interesting that you have no arguments left and have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.

And thank you for confirming my point:

>off shore wind is right on the cusp of viability.

Meaning the very best off-shore wind projects may or may not be profitable. We don't know yet.

Whereas the worst French nuclear project in recent history (FV3) is predicted by the Cour des Comptes to have "modest" profitability in the worst case scenarios.

So once again: worst nuclear >> best intermittent renewable.

QED.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent [-]

The report with a discount rate lower than the inflation and a 40 year pay back time.

For anyone even having a slight economic understanding the writers of that report are shouting from the top of their lungs that investing in nuclear power is pure lunacy.

But shrouded in a language allowing lobbyists and blindingly biased people to cite it.

Any understanding of economy and shilling for nuclear power seems to be a very disjoint set given what we are seeing in this thread.

▲

mpweiher 19 hours ago | parent [-]

"Interesting" unsubstantiated opinions.

And counterfactual, as nuclear is immensely profitable and the world is investing in nuclear.

▲

ViewTrick1002 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Here’s the source Cour des Comptes report validating that you are incorrect.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243337

The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.

Given this answer I don’t know if you are either trolling or have serious problems with delusions.

I dislike drawing conclusions so I will end this conversion with a question:

If you are not trolling, have you tried seeking help from the mental healthcare system?

▲

mpweiher 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, you are still incorrect.

Nuclear had a record production year in 2024, despite the German exit.

2025 is predicted to be another record year.

There are currently 60+ reactors under construction, 90+ in preparation and 170+ announced/in planning.

The future is nuclear.

▲

ViewTrick1002 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Please. Do tell me where I am incorrect. You just keep making unsubstantiated claims about me being "incorrect" and when we go to the sources they contradict you.

Or you are explicitly going on tangents attempting to muddy the water. Nuclear power having a record year in 2025 and me claiming:

> The world also very much is not investing in nuclear power given how it is backsliding as a % of the global energy mix with a huge number of closures looming in the close future with no replacements in sight.

Are both correct statements. I even acknowledge that we have a lot of existing infrastructure while commmenting on the trend line.

That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. In 2024 the world managed to complete 6 reactors. So far the number in 2025 is a 1 reactor.

Of course ignoring that this is a debate focused on the west with western construction costs. In which the nuclear construction rate far under the replacement rate.

But you can't deal with reality. When it came to the future you went straight into hypotheticals not backed by firm deals hoping no one noticed.

This is not a sane behaviour, nor commenting in good faith.

Nuclear projects are easy to announce. Maybe we can ask these reactors how it went getting a final investment decision:

France:

EPR2 project, do I need to say more? Stuck in financial limbo due to the insanely large subsidies needed to get it off the ground with a government that just collapsed due to being underwater in debt while having a spending problem and being unable to reign it in.

UK:

- Sizewell C - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizewell_nuclear_power_stati...)

- Wylfa-Newydd - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wylfa_Newydd_nuclear_power_sta...

- Oldbury B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldbury_nuclear_power_station#...

- Bradwell B - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati...

- Moorside - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_nuclear_power_station

US:

- Bellefonte - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellefonte_Nuclear_Plant#Units...

- Bell bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Bend_Nuclear_Power_Plant

- Callaway - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St...

- Calvert Cliffs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Power_P...

- Comance Peak - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

- Galena - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

- Grand Gulf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Gulf_Nuclear_Station#Uni...

- Levy County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

- Nine Mile Point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Mile_Point_Nuclear_Genera...

- River Bend - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Bend_Nuclear_Generating_...

- Shearon Harris - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shearon_Harris_Nuclear_Power_P...

- South Texas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating...

- Victoria County - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_County_Station

- Virgil C. Summer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener...

China:

Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. China also recently revamped the financing side removing the previous CFD are instead forcing the reactors to compete on market terms which is slowing down investment.

China averages ~4-5 construction starts per year which cumulatively leads to nuclear power shrinking as a part of the electricity mix.

	▲	mpweiher 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, I have no time to debunk all the disinformation you put out. > China: Keeps announcing reactors without starting to build them. I asked ChatGPT: Is it true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any? ChatGPT said: No, it's not true that China keeps announcing nuclear reactors without building any. In fact, China is one of the most active countries in the world in building nuclear power plants. Here's what the facts show (as of 2024–2025): China is actively building nuclear reactors As of 2024, over 20 reactors are under construction in China, making it the country with the largest number of reactors being built. Many more are in various stages of planning and permitting. China has over 50 reactors in operation already and continues to expand its fleet aggressively. China’s typical process China often announces long-term nuclear energy plans as part of its five-year plans or carbon neutrality goals (aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060). Not all announcements lead to immediate construction — some projects are proposed or approved but not yet started, due to: Regulatory approval processes Site selection Financing and technology partnerships Local opposition or environmental reviews Examples of real construction and completion The Hualong One (HPR-1000), a Chinese-designed Gen-III reactor, has been built and connected to the grid in multiple locations, including: Fuqing-5 and Fuqing-6 Karachi-2 and Karachi-3 in Pakistan (exported models) China is also investing in SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) and fast breeder reactors, including: The Shidao Bay HTGR (high-temperature gas-cooled reactor), which reached criticality. The CFR-600 fast reactor, under construction. Why might people think China is only announcing? Some reasons for the misunderstanding: Media headlines often report announcements, but follow-up coverage of construction or completion is rare unless it's a major milestone. Some proposed projects take years to move forward, so people may assume they’re stalled. There is general skepticism toward state announcements in some international media. Conclusion: China is not just announcing nuclear reactors — it is actively building and commissioning them at a faster rate than almost any other country. While not every announcement leads to immediate construction, a large percentage do eventually get built. ---- > That 60+ reactors number also includes several abandoned projects. The PRIS database lists 63 reactor projects. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstruction... How many of those do you consider "abandoned"? Is it a significant number? ---- Financial Limbo. Once again, I asked ChatGPT: "Is the EPR2 project stuck in financial limbo? Not exactly. While the EPR2 nuclear reactor project faces significant financial uncertainties, rising costs, and regulatory hurdles, it is not truly "stuck in financial limbo." The project is currently in a prolonged but fairly typical preparatory phase for large-scale infrastructure, where securing financing, approvals, and detailed planning takes time. These challenges are common in complex, capital-intensive projects—nuclear or otherwise—and reflect the cautious and deliberate approach needed before construction can begin. The French government and EDF remain engaged, with key decisions and financing strategies expected soon, indicating the project is still moving forward, albeit slowly and with some risks."