5 ms·

Studying history. The cost of nuclear was low until we stopped building 50 years ago. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-kore

Studying history. The cost of nuclear was low until we stopped building 50 years ago. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u... It's a pity -- if we had kept up the pace, we'd already have completely decarbonized our grid, but instead we are barely starting. Ah well. At least solar and wind finally became economical. Any path forward is a good path, even if it's 50 years late.

hedora 3y ago
At the moment, coal and probably gas is more expensive than solar, purely due to the turbines and generators. Nuclear relies on the same subsystems, and it’s unlikely they’ll get significantly cheaper any time soon. Having said that, I think nuclear could be made cost-competitive with coal and natural gas, at least in theory. Also, it’s unclear that we’ll be able to build a reliable, net carbon negative power grid without a large number of nuclear plants.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Solar cannot provide reliable power. It's cheaper because it doesn't solve a massive part of the problem. Do the actual math on what it takes to get a reliable solar kWh onto the grid and suddenly it's a lot more expensive.