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.

>> 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.