4 ms·

> The only reasonable conclusion from your logic is that it would have felt like an even worse idea to build nuclear reactors in the 1970's. Yet, using today's

> The only reasonable conclusion from your logic is that it would have felt like an even worse idea to build nuclear reactors in the 1970's. Yet, using today's hindsight, it was a great idea. If the competition was renewables and storage rather than plants running on imported oil during the oil crisis it would have been. 75% of all new capacity in TWh (I.e. adjusting for capacity factor.) globally are renewables and storage. There’s no need to swim against the river.

mpweiher 10mo ago
Intermittent renewables have capacity factors in the 10-20% range. So divide by 5. 34 nations have committed to tripling nuclear capacity, including the US, China, France, the UK and many others. And they are acting on this as well. The tide is nuclear, no need to swim against it. And no, countries also doing renewables in no way negates this.
- ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
  It is quite telling that you are spamming this entire submission with extremely strong opinions about how amazing nuclear power is, ignoring any contrary facts. Taking any mention of renewables close to a personal insult. Then turning around and not understanding that ”TWh” is already adjusted for capacity factor. In my eyes it is hard to take you seriously when you don’t comprehend even basic physical properties of our grid and energy systems. Let alone economics, timelines, opportunity cost etc.
  - mpweiher 10mo ago
    Strangely enough, I happen to be one bringing facts, whereas you bring the strong opinions backed by...your strong opinions.
    - ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
      You mean facts like that capacity factor is 10-20% of the produced TWh which is a physical measure already adjusted for capacity factor?
    - seec 10mo ago
      He just likes to argue to death as if his life depended on it. I picture him as an annoying, relentless mosquito.
- godelski 10mo ago
  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.
  - ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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-2025.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

mpweiher 10mo ago

Intermittent renewables have capacity factors in the 10-20% range. So divide by 5. 34 nations have committed to tripling nuclear capacity, including the US, China, France, the UK and many others. And they are acting on this as well. The tide is nuclear, no need to swim against it. And no, countries also doing renewables in no way negates this.

ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
It is quite telling that you are spamming this entire submission with extremely strong opinions about how amazing nuclear power is, ignoring any contrary facts. Taking any mention of renewables close to a personal insult. Then turning around and not understanding that ”TWh” is already adjusted for capacity factor. In my eyes it is hard to take you seriously when you don’t comprehend even basic physical properties of our grid and energy systems. Let alone economics, timelines, opportunity cost etc.
- mpweiher 10mo ago
  Strangely enough, I happen to be one bringing facts, whereas you bring the strong opinions backed by...your strong opinions.
  - ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
    You mean facts like that capacity factor is 10-20% of the produced TWh which is a physical measure already adjusted for capacity factor?
  - seec 10mo ago
    He just likes to argue to death as if his life depended on it. I picture him as an annoying, relentless mosquito.
godelski 10mo ago
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.
- ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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-2025.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...