5 ms·

Great, hopefully the ship is turning around slowly. I have been hearing from pro-carbon "environmentalists" for 30 years that "we should have built nuclear 20 y

Great, hopefully the ship is turning around slowly. I have been hearing from pro-carbon "environmentalists" for 30 years that "we should have built nuclear 20 years ago but doing so now would be pointless". Meanwhile we may have just reached peak-coal today if we are lucky. Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say.

amanaplanacanal 7mo ago
They got what they wanted. They are still successfully killing solar and wind projects. I'll be surprised if this project actually gets built, though.
- hunterpayne 7mo ago
  I don't think killing solar and wind projects is what the greens do. The problems with solar and wind are entirely due to the laws of physics. They get large advantages in the energy markets in most places. They have been very effective in preventing nuclear though which ironically does so much real world damage to their cause that all the rest of what they do is a drop in the bucket.
  - croes 7mo ago
    Our problem isn’t energy production, it’s storage. Nuclear power plants aren’t flexible enough for sudden changes in energy consumption.
    - mpweiher 7mo ago
      The storage problem is home-made, because our problem is intermittent renewables that can't produce on-demand. With consistent producers like nuclear there is no storage problem. And of course the Natrium plant has the buffer so it can ramp grid output up and down while maintaining the reactor at consistent power levels.
      - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
        > With consistent producers like nuclear there is no storage problem. This tells me you’ve never looked at a demand curve. In for example California the demand swings from 18 GW to 50 GW over the day and seasons. The problem has always been economical. And this solution is looking like a bandaid to get taxpayer handouts. Why store expensive nuclear electricity rather than extremely cheap renewable electricity?
        stinkbeetle 7mo ago
        > This tells me you’ve never looked at a demand curve. In for example California the demand swings from 18 GW to 50 GW over the day Have you been looking at "net demand" curves? Total demand variation is not too large over the day. The wind/solar production enormously increases the magnitude of remaining demand difference over the day. https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook > and seasons. Nobody is talking about batteries to deal with demand swings between seasons though. Capacity has to accommodate whether it's nuclear or fossil or battery or renewable. The issue is day to day variation. And it does not matter how much wind/solar capacity you have, you can't supply demand without storage. That is untrue of other generation types. Other generation might use batteries to take the edge of peaks, but that would only be done if it made total cost cheaper. That's not the case for renewables. If there were no other generation then they would have to use storage, so it's always going to make them more expensive.
        ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
        The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? It goes 7 GW negative. The problem with nuclear power is that about all costs are fixed. It costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% for 40 years excluding backup, transmission, final waste disposal and taxes. Now remove any earning potential from large portions of the day coming from renewables and storage and the economics simply does not pan a out.
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
    - chickenbig 7mo ago
      France seems to work. They have plenty of nuclear power that is flexible. And you can have other forms of consumption flexibility; otherwise wind and solar are really in trouble.
      - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
        France uses their own and their neighbors fossil capacity to manage nuclear inflexibility. When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports. Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs. The problem is that they are up against economic incentives. Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t. Why should they not sell their excess to their neighbors? They do. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns-solar-wind-surge-straining-nuclear-fleet-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns...
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
        No it doesn't. You can see it https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/generation-achieved-by-unit.html https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/g... French nuclear is more flexible than coal by design and as flexible as many older gas plants with ALFC system. They can reach up to 0.5%/second modulation (proved by Philipsburg) if the situation requires but it's rarely the case if you have a fleet. It's still not as fast as BWR's that can reach 1%/second but german coal is the slowest load follower and still meets min requirements imposed by the grid. "When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports." - was true in the past, a bit, but afaik this and last winter France was net exporting a ton. And with FLA3 reaching full capacity this year it'll be even less of a problem. It's not like they have a problem now, they are the largest net exporter on the continent and it's unlikely to change soon. "Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs." - yes, because ren generation is acting like a parasitic source without proper BESS deployments - they eat into firm power profits without providing firm power benefits. "Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t." - because in many places of the world solar+bess are not sufficient. It's also the reason why Microsoft signed a contract for TMI way above market prices instead of building a fully offgrid ren solution EDF is selling power to neighbors and makes money from it. It also is modulating it's npp a lot, which will maybe change when AC's will be more widely deployed and EV's will expand. It also is trying to schedule most maintenance works in summer, during lowest demand periods
    - Moldoteck 7mo ago
      Nuclear power is one of the most flexible sources of power, especially PWR's with ALFC or even more so - BWR's You can actually see how France is flexing in the summer on RTE website
      - ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
        France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive. > Electricite de France SA said growing solar and wind generation was increasing equipment wear and maintenance costs at its nuclear reactors, which are forced to reduce output when power demand is insufficient. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns-solar-wind-surge-straining-nuclear-fleet-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns...
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
        "France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive." - one doesnt disprove the other. French nuclear is extremely flexible https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/generation-achieved-by-unit.html https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/g... but it doesn't mean it's free. Solar and wind without proper bess to support them are creating problems for other generators, acting as grid parasites without offering proper firm generation
        pfdietz 7mo ago
        The flexibility claim was always the same lie: that what mattered was technical flexibility, when economic flexibility wasn't there.
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
        That's false too. Most of the arguments from antinuclear activists in this direction are about physical capacity of modulating too slow, which was false. Regardless, EDF is modulating now mostly due to economic reasons. Above 50-60% capacity factor you'll be fine, beyond that it'll be problematic with any asset, at which point you'll need to ask yourself if you love gas or you let nuclear run for some minimal CF or if you mandate each NPP to build a bess buffer to absorb capacity when needed
  - amanaplanacanal 7mo ago
    Sorry, I was talking about the fake environmentalists being funded by the fossil fuel industry. And the fossil fuel industry is still successfully killing solar and wind projects in the US.
- mpweiher 7mo ago
  Construction for the non-nuclear parts started a while ago and is proceeding. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/terrapower-breaks-ground-for-natrium-plant https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/terrapower-break...
  - GolfPopper 7mo ago
    The non-nuclear bit is the key there. Site construction is not the challenge. Turning a theoretical reactor design into a working reactor design is. As far as I can tell, in its 20 years of existence, TerraPower has not built a reactor. nor had one of its designs built by someone else.
    - mpweiher 7mo ago
      This is the first one. Before you build the first one, you haven't built one. Are you saying first things can never be built?
      - GolfPopper 7mo ago
        If I go around bragging about my awesome self-built home design for years, and then buy, clear and level a plot of land, while it is a necessary step, it is also largely irrelevant to my ability to actually build the house, much less the quality of the finished building.
        mpweiher 7mo ago
        If they had bragged that they had built their design and that is proven in practice, you might have a point. But they haven't. So you don't. They started building, with the non-nuclear bits first, as one does. Now they have regulatory approval. One step after another.
        GolfPopper 7mo ago
        Building the actual reactor is the challenging bit. You claimed that building the non-nuclear parts of the construction as evidence that the reactor itself will successfully be built, which is nonsense. That someone builds a launchpad tells you nothing about their ability to build and successfully launch rockets
tacticus 7mo ago
> Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say. Are you describing the "just build nukes" party here? Cause we've been waiting a while for this nuke solution to actually ship but every example is far more expensive all while the nuke lovers block solar and wind for the same reasons.
- Shitty-kitty 7mo ago
  There is no for-profit companies that are in it to save the planet, despite what the brochures say. Unfortunately for non-carbon power companies, their main competition is each other rather then fossil fuel sources.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  No.

amanaplanacanal 7mo ago

They got what they wanted. They are still successfully killing solar and wind projects. I'll be surprised if this project actually gets built, though.

hunterpayne 7mo ago
I don't think killing solar and wind projects is what the greens do. The problems with solar and wind are entirely due to the laws of physics. They get large advantages in the energy markets in most places. They have been very effective in preventing nuclear though which ironically does so much real world damage to their cause that all the rest of what they do is a drop in the bucket.
- croes 7mo ago
  Our problem isn’t energy production, it’s storage. Nuclear power plants aren’t flexible enough for sudden changes in energy consumption.
  - mpweiher 7mo ago
    The storage problem is home-made, because our problem is intermittent renewables that can't produce on-demand. With consistent producers like nuclear there is no storage problem. And of course the Natrium plant has the buffer so it can ramp grid output up and down while maintaining the reactor at consistent power levels.
    - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
      > With consistent producers like nuclear there is no storage problem. This tells me you’ve never looked at a demand curve. In for example California the demand swings from 18 GW to 50 GW over the day and seasons. The problem has always been economical. And this solution is looking like a bandaid to get taxpayer handouts. Why store expensive nuclear electricity rather than extremely cheap renewable electricity?
      - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
        > This tells me you’ve never looked at a demand curve. In for example California the demand swings from 18 GW to 50 GW over the day Have you been looking at "net demand" curves? Total demand variation is not too large over the day. The wind/solar production enormously increases the magnitude of remaining demand difference over the day. https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook > and seasons. Nobody is talking about batteries to deal with demand swings between seasons though. Capacity has to accommodate whether it's nuclear or fossil or battery or renewable. The issue is day to day variation. And it does not matter how much wind/solar capacity you have, you can't supply demand without storage. That is untrue of other generation types. Other generation might use batteries to take the edge of peaks, but that would only be done if it made total cost cheaper. That's not the case for renewables. If there were no other generation then they would have to use storage, so it's always going to make them more expensive.
        ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
        The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? It goes 7 GW negative. The problem with nuclear power is that about all costs are fixed. It costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% for 40 years excluding backup, transmission, final waste disposal and taxes. Now remove any earning potential from large portions of the day coming from renewables and storage and the economics simply does not pan a out.
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
  - chickenbig 7mo ago
    France seems to work. They have plenty of nuclear power that is flexible. And you can have other forms of consumption flexibility; otherwise wind and solar are really in trouble.
    - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
      France uses their own and their neighbors fossil capacity to manage nuclear inflexibility. When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports. Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs. The problem is that they are up against economic incentives. Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t. Why should they not sell their excess to their neighbors? They do. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns-solar-wind-surge-straining-nuclear-fleet-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns...
      - Moldoteck 7mo ago
        No it doesn't. You can see it https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/generation-achieved-by-unit.html https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/g... French nuclear is more flexible than coal by design and as flexible as many older gas plants with ALFC system. They can reach up to 0.5%/second modulation (proved by Philipsburg) if the situation requires but it's rarely the case if you have a fleet. It's still not as fast as BWR's that can reach 1%/second but german coal is the slowest load follower and still meets min requirements imposed by the grid. "When a cold spell hits France exports turn to imports." - was true in the past, a bit, but afaik this and last winter France was net exporting a ton. And with FLA3 reaching full capacity this year it'll be even less of a problem. It's not like they have a problem now, they are the largest net exporter on the continent and it's unlikely to change soon. "Now EDF is crying about renewables lowering nuclear earning potential and increasing maintenance costs." - yes, because ren generation is acting like a parasitic source without proper BESS deployments - they eat into firm power profits without providing firm power benefits. "Why should a company or person with solar and storage buy grid based nuclear power? They don’t." - because in many places of the world solar+bess are not sufficient. It's also the reason why Microsoft signed a contract for TMI way above market prices instead of building a fully offgrid ren solution EDF is selling power to neighbors and makes money from it. It also is modulating it's npp a lot, which will maybe change when AC's will be more widely deployed and EV's will expand. It also is trying to schedule most maintenance works in summer, during lowest demand periods
  - Moldoteck 7mo ago
    Nuclear power is one of the most flexible sources of power, especially PWR's with ALFC or even more so - BWR's You can actually see how France is flexing in the summer on RTE website
    - ZeroGravitas 7mo ago
      France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive. > Electricite de France SA said growing solar and wind generation was increasing equipment wear and maintenance costs at its nuclear reactors, which are forced to reduce output when power demand is insufficient. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns-solar-wind-surge-straining-nuclear-fleet-costs https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns...
      - Moldoteck 7mo ago
        "France's nuclear operators have been claiming this for years. But recently started claiming that wind and solar are bad because they force nuclear to flex which is too expensive." - one doesnt disprove the other. French nuclear is extremely flexible https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/generation-achieved-by-unit.html https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/g... but it doesn't mean it's free. Solar and wind without proper bess to support them are creating problems for other generators, acting as grid parasites without offering proper firm generation
        pfdietz 7mo ago
        The flexibility claim was always the same lie: that what mattered was technical flexibility, when economic flexibility wasn't there.
        Moldoteck 7mo ago
        That's false too. Most of the arguments from antinuclear activists in this direction are about physical capacity of modulating too slow, which was false. Regardless, EDF is modulating now mostly due to economic reasons. Above 50-60% capacity factor you'll be fine, beyond that it'll be problematic with any asset, at which point you'll need to ask yourself if you love gas or you let nuclear run for some minimal CF or if you mandate each NPP to build a bess buffer to absorb capacity when needed
- amanaplanacanal 7mo ago
  Sorry, I was talking about the fake environmentalists being funded by the fossil fuel industry. And the fossil fuel industry is still successfully killing solar and wind projects in the US.
mpweiher 7mo ago
Construction for the non-nuclear parts started a while ago and is proceeding. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/terrapower-breaks-ground-for-natrium-plant https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/terrapower-break...
- GolfPopper 7mo ago
  The non-nuclear bit is the key there. Site construction is not the challenge. Turning a theoretical reactor design into a working reactor design is. As far as I can tell, in its 20 years of existence, TerraPower has not built a reactor. nor had one of its designs built by someone else.
  - mpweiher 7mo ago
    This is the first one. Before you build the first one, you haven't built one. Are you saying first things can never be built?
    - GolfPopper 7mo ago
      If I go around bragging about my awesome self-built home design for years, and then buy, clear and level a plot of land, while it is a necessary step, it is also largely irrelevant to my ability to actually build the house, much less the quality of the finished building.
      - mpweiher 7mo ago
        If they had bragged that they had built their design and that is proven in practice, you might have a point. But they haven't. So you don't. They started building, with the non-nuclear bits first, as one does. Now they have regulatory approval. One step after another.
        GolfPopper 7mo ago
        Building the actual reactor is the challenging bit. You claimed that building the non-nuclear parts of the construction as evidence that the reactor itself will successfully be built, which is nonsense. That someone builds a launchpad tells you nothing about their ability to build and successfully launch rockets

tacticus 7mo ago

> Well past time to stop listening to anything those grifting charlatans have to say. Are you describing the "just build nukes" party here? Cause we've been waiting a while for this nuke solution to actually ship but every example is far more expensive all while the nuke lovers block solar and wind for the same reasons.

Shitty-kitty 7mo ago
There is no for-profit companies that are in it to save the planet, despite what the brochures say. Unfortunately for non-carbon power companies, their main competition is each other rather then fossil fuel sources.
stinkbeetle 7mo ago
No.