4 ms·

The problem is that we can’t be wasting money and opportunity cost that could have larger impact decarbonizing agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shi

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-...
- seec 10mo ago
  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.
  - ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
    > 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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        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.

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-...

seec 10mo ago
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.
- ViewTrick1002 10mo ago
  > 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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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.