Both you and ViewTrick have it wrong.

The tide is neither nuclear nor renewables.

The tide is "we've become advanced enough to know that there is no one-size fits all solution for energy generation and are taking a more nuanced approach to address the local and different energy needs of differing regions/grids".

I hate these online debates that frame things like "renewables vs nuclear" when the reality should be "zero-carbon emission sources vs carbon emission". The only part of nuclear is in that is if it should be on the table or not. But it is absolutely idiotic from that framework to take nuclear off the table because you're not saying "nuclear everywhere" you're saying "if nuclear makes more sense for this setting, then use nuclear".

Don't oversimplify things, it makes everything too complicated.

▲ mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with your last 4 paragraphs 100%.

The framing of an either/or situation is one that renewables advocates (commonly) make, it is not shared by nuclear advocates. Almost all industrialized nations are doing both.

▲ ViewTrick1002 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The problem is that we can’t be wasting money and opportunity cost that could have larger impact decarbonizing agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping etc on handouts from tax money to new built nuclear power.

As soon as zero fuel cost renewables enters the picture the mix of extremely high CAPEX and acceptable OPEX for new built nuclear makes it the worst companion imaginable.

The problem is that the setting nuclear power makes sense in is for the people living north of the arctic without abundant hydro or a transmission grid.

We’re now down to a handful communities in Russia, the US and Canada and Svalbard.

If these communities pertaining a few hundred thousand people keep running on fossil fuels while we achieve larger impact elsewhere that’s perfectly acceptable.

▲ godelski 2 days ago | parent [-]

  > The problem is that we can’t be wasting money and opportunity cost that could have larger impact decarbonizing

I agree. FULLHEARTEDLY. That is at the very root of my message, isn't it?

  > on handouts from tax money to new built nuclear power.

But this is where I disagree. For 2 reasons

1) You don't seem to be applying this same measure to other energy sources like renewables, storage, and so on.

2) "Government money" works differently than "people money". I am not the best person to explain this but I'll summarize what my girlfriend and her dad constantly say, both having PhDs in economics (who teach this stuff and work with governments) "An economist can only tell you how much something costs, not if you should do it or if the results are worth the cost." Like a economist can tell you how much a hospital will cost and how many lives it might save, but at the end of the day they can't tell you if that's the right choice or not.

# Costs

You really should check out the Lazard report[0]. They get pretty detailed.

Jump to page 8 and you'll see a table like this (let's see how well I can format this here lol. Won't look nice on mobile)

  Solar (Comm & C&I)            $81----------------------$217
  Solar (Util)          $38----$78
  Solar + Stor (Util)      $50-------------$131
  GeoTherm                   $66-------$109
  Wind (OnShore)       $37--------$86
  Wind+Stor (On)          $44------------$123
  Wind (OffShore)             $70----------------$157
  Gas                                $108^5  $149-----------------------$251
  Nuclear             $34^5                $141--$169^6--$200  $228^6
  Gas Comb Cyc       $31^5 $48-----$107^7-$109

  ^5: Reflects cot of opperating fully depreciated facilities, includes decommissioning, salvage, restoration
  ^6: Based on Vogtle nuclear power plant with "learning curve" being ~30% between units 3&4. Based on 70 year lifespan

So there's important things here.

  1) *Existing Nuclear* is the cheapest zero-carbon source
  2) Vogtle is Lazard's *ONLY* source of data for new nuclear
    2.1) Removing the "Learning Curve" costs from Vogtle puts competitive with renewables ($118-$160)
    2.2) Including the "Learning Curve" Vogtle is already competitive with rooftop solar 
  3) (Page 9) Renewable prices are much cheaper thanks to subsidies.
    3.1) Solar
         $81-$217 --> $51-$178
         $38-$78  --> $20-$57
         $50-$131 --> $33-$111
    3.2) Same for wind but you can look
    3.3) *NOTE* Trump is ending subsidies

You're also going to be very interested with pages 19-20 for storage costs. In particular the cost of residential storage.

  > The problem is that the setting nuclear power makes sense

This is just not true! You've vastly oversimplified the setting. I'd agree, there's probably no reason for nuclear in the American Southwest. There's lots of sun, lots of open land, and lower environmental impacts. But this isn't true elsewhere. Hydro is great, but you forget that it has pretty heavy environmental impacts as well. You have to create a reservoir, meaning you have to put land under water. Not to mention how it changes the water.

There's no free lunch!

# "[Costs] can't tell you if that's the right choice or not"

And that's the reason I said what I said! You both are vastly oversimplifying things to the point where you think there's one right answer. THERE ISN'T. The whole point of the renewables movement isn't to make cheap electricity, it is *to make the environment better* while still producing the energy we need and at affordable prices. If this was just a price discussion then we wouldn't be where we are and gas and coal would be the cheapest option. *BUT we care about the environment*. Not just the carbon in the air, but the carbon in the ocean, the animals it impacts, the forests and lands (both of which are also a vital part of natural carbon sequestration!), and making the planet a better place not just for humans but all life.

Get out of your internet armchair and go find out what actual experts are saying. Not the dumb science communicators on YouTube. Not the clickbait like "IFuckingLoveScience". Go watch lectures online. Go watch lectures in person! I don't know how to tell you this, but you can straight up email any professor at any university. People respond! Not only that, but you can go sit in on their classes (I'd suggest you ask first, but nobody fucking takes attendance). Go grab actual books (those people will recommend those books to you too!).

Take your passion for arguing on the internet and make sure it is at least equal to the passion you have for learning about the actual subject matter. If your love of arguing is greater than your love of the actual subject then I promise you, you are harming the very community you believe you are fighting for. You can even go ahead and ask those same people I'm requesting you reach out to and I'm sure plenty will tell you the same. I mean for Christ's sake, you got so caught up in me calling you out that you didn't even recognize I called out the person you were arguing with and instead put me into the same bucket! Clearly putting me in the same bucket as mpweiher is a categorical mistake!

[0] https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In fact, Lazard themselves are very aware that their numbers are not representative for nuclear (as indicated by the footnote) and they themselves are very bullish on nuclear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ

“We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35)

“We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47)

“the costs of nuclear should go down “ (12:54)

“next five to 10 years the nuclear bar the one that's most likely to change the most in in terms of cost reduction” (14:06)

▲

seec a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank you for that.

I'm always tired of the anti-nuclear zealots that make it look like it's an either/or situation.

We can (and should) do both. Even if renewable plus storage ends up being sufficient in some places, it is extremely unlikely that will apply everywhere. And at the current production rates, it would take multiple decades to transition everything. Even if we take forever (10 years+) to build new nuclear, as it happens to be right now, it would still be beneficial. And there is no good reason we can't build fast like China manages to do right now.

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly!

For example, French nuclear capacity factors are currently rising. One reason, as far as I can tell, is that they can now use intermittent renewables for at least some of the peak load, meaning they don't have to ramp their nuclear plants up and down.

Win win!

Also, PV is absolutely fantastic for hot deserts: lots of sunshine and a lot of load that correlates almost perfectly with that very same sunshine.

▲

ViewTrick1002 12 hours ago | parent [-]

French capacity factors are rising because half their fleet was offline [1] in 2022-23 and they are finally getting out of that. But apparently nuclear power is 100% reliable and does not need any backup since that would add to the already unfathomably large costs for new built nuclear power.

In terms of total energy produced France is far off their earlier peaks. [2] They just keep shrinking the nuclear share.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

[2]: https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...

	▲	mpweiher 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		2022. My kind of humor. Until March of 2023, decreasing the nuclear share was the law in France. The law said that the nuclear share was to be decreased to below 50%. In addition, the absolute capacity of nuclear power was not allowed to increase. So in order to build even just one new nuclear power plant, for example to maintain industrial capacity, they had to shut down two existing plants. Which generally makes very little sense. And it precluded building nuclear power plants the way we know how to build them quickly and cheaply: multiple units of the same design, slightly overlapping. So the law forced France to build Flamanville 3 the exact way we know how not to do it.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Even if we take forever (10 years+) to build new nuclear, as it happens to be right now, it would still be beneficial.

Why would it be benifical to waste multiples more money on less results taking longer time to delvier? This seems like zeolotry rather than logic speaking.

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Comparison:

1. France decarbonized their electricity sector in 15 years. Cost was €228 billion.

2. Germany has been trying and failing to decarbonize their electricity sector for the last 20+ years, the "Energiewende". Cost so far: €700 billion and rising. Specific CO₂ emissions for electricity are 10x worse than France (2024 numbers, 2025 isn't over yet, but so far it looks like little or no change).

Which is faster and cheaper, in your humble opinion: (1) or (2)?

	▲	ViewTrick1002 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		These are typical disingenuous pro-nuclear arguments trying to frame it as a comparison between two non-existent options in 2025 because rooting our future in reality makes your so position untenable that even you can't bring yourself to type it out. 1. We pay 2025 (soon 2026) costs for renewables and storage today. Thus a total sum calculated by adding up costs for 2010 solar subsidies is not applicable. 2. We pay 2025 (soon 2026) costs for nuclear power today. Thus a total sum calculated on half a century old French data is not applicable. But thanks for the admission that as soon as new built nuclear power costs and construction times face our 2026 reality it becomes economic and opportunity cost lunacy to invest in it, unless you have extraneous motives like military ambitions.

▲

ViewTrick1002 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Renewable energy and storage are built without subsidies all over the world? 75% of all new capacity in TWh (i.e. corrected for capacity factor) is not built on feel good environmentalism. It is pure market economics.

I am applying the same measure to both. What renewable subsidies can do is speed up our uptake by stranding fossil assets faster. Which is why the fossil lobby is allying with nuclear power since it knows any money redirected to the nuclear industry will prolong the life of their fossil assets.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-12-09/nuclear-e...

I think you got lost in the statistics. Your figures are for the US which are some of the highest in the world due to tariffs and a complex regulatory regime.

> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear

Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer and the countless started but then unfinished projects does not paint any prettier picture for western new built nuclear power.

This is an eye-opening list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_react...

That only contains the cancelled reactors, there's a bunch which is still in limbo.

> You're also going to be very interested with pages 19-20 for storage costs. In particular the cost of residential storage.

Large scale storage is down to $50/kWh. Home storage less than $100/kWh.

These are prices you can access in for example Europe and Australia, but it won’t be a western company.

See for example:

https://www.docanpower.com/eu-stock/zz-48kwh-50kwh-51-2v-942...

> If this was just a price discussion then we wouldn't be where we are and gas and coal would be the cheapest option

That is where it started. Today renewables are the cheapest energy source in human history. It is cheaper all-in than the cost to run fully depreciated coal and gas plants.

What we are seeing is that for the first time in centuries we are lowering the global price floor for energy. From fossil fuels to renewables.

We’ve seen this happen in the past with hydro. Which famously is "geographically limited" after we quickly dammed up near every river globally

Nuclear power was an attempt at this starting 70 years ago. It didn’t deliver. It’s time we let go.

The renewables movement started as a way make our world better. Now we’re at the cusp of unlocking the next step of available energy for humanity while keeping it green.

Celebrate that rather than locking in useless handouts for new built nuclear power.

The time to invest in all alternatives was 20 years ago. We did that with for example the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The starting of Gen 3+ reactor projects all over the western world and similar measures.

We also started to really invest in renewables.

Based on this investment we can unequivocally say that new built nuclear power is a dead-end waste of taxpayer money while on the other hand renewables and storage are delivering way way way beyond our wildest dreams.

▲

mpweiher 13 hours ago | parent [-]

>> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear > Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer ...

...doesn't broaden the data on which you base your conclusions nearly enough to make any broad predictions. Even if things were normal, a couple of hand-picked examples don't show much of anything. But things are not "normal" with that selection.

All of these projects are of just two reactor types, the Westinghouse AP-1000 and the French EPR.

One of these has even been discontinued by its manufacturer, because it was too difficult to build. Do you know which?

All of these builds were also First of a Kind (FOAK) builds. Westinghouse had submitted plans for the AP-1000 to the NRC that were not actually buildable. Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them?

Speaking of the different between FOAK and NOAK builds (Nth of a Kind): China's first two AP-1000 reactors took about 10 years to build. They are now building a slightly uprated version, the CAP-14000 (so 1,4GW electric instead of 1,0GW), in 5 years. For $3.5 bn.

Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built.

	▲	ViewTrick1002 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Are you saying we need to broaden our data to imaginary reactors the west did not build to pad the numbers? The currently proposed handout from tax money for the French EPR2 fleet is 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely. > Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them? Yes. The total cost for the proposed three Polish AP1000s is $47B. The final cost for Vogtle was $37B. A near equivalent cost per GW. Poland haven't even started building and thus haven't begun to enter the long tail of cost increases for nuclear construction. Only beaten in size by the Olympics and nuclear waste storage. > Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built. Lets blame everything on ”FOAK”. Despite Hinkley point C being reactor 5 and 6 in the EPR series. But that is of course ”FOAK”. Then allude that the next UK reactor will be cheaper. Despite the projected cost for Sizewell C is £38B before even starting compared to the current projection at £42-48B for Hinkley Point C. Sizewell C will be two EPR reactors. You know, the reactor you called discontinued. Despite it not being discontinued.