4 ms·

”If we compare apples to oranges nuclear power is cheap”. You can finance the competition in the same way and get similarly cheaper prices. Hinkley Point C ju

”If we compare apples to oranges nuclear power is cheap”. You can finance the competition in the same way and get similarly cheaper prices. Hinkley Point C just got a loan at a 7% interest rate to finish the plant. That is after about all uncertainty should already have been discovered. Now add making a profit and factor in the risk on top and you’ll end up with electricity costing $400 per MWh

thatcat 6mo ago
If risk and disposal is factored into coal, gas, solar power, what would be cheaper? Nuclear has recyclable fuel processes and fail safe systems available.
- ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
  That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet. Not sure what risk you think come from renewables and storage?
  - littlestymaar 6mo ago
    > That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact. > Not sure what risk you think come from renewables The grid collapse risk (See what happened in Spain last year, which caused 8 deaths, more than every nuclear power plant accidents in the Western world combined…). Grid operators are currently investing a trillion Euro in the EU alone in order to adapt the grid to the new challenges caused by intermittent and distributed energy sources, and this will never be accounted for in renewable electricity prices… (hence the paradox: the more “cheap energy” is being deployed in Europe, the more expensive the electricity prices become). > and storage "Storage" doesn't exist yet as a most people imagine it. Batteries can help ease a few hours of peak load/low supply but that's pretty much it, pumped storage is very situational with limited deployment capabilities. So the risk is that the technology simply never materialize.
    - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
      It is not included. In my part of the world the authorities can demand a clean up bond as part of giving permission to build the project. That is done to ensure that you can’t skimp on your responsibilities. Then I just see misinformation on the Iberian blackout. Please go ahead and tell me how thermal planes not delivering the expected reactive power was caused by renewables. Please tell me how renewables can’t deliver reactive power when the US and all other sane grids have required them to do it for close to a decade. And with that we’re solving high 90s% of the grid. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough when we still need to solve agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping, industry and so on. All ignoring that storage on larger scales already exists.
      - littlestymaar 6mo ago
        Wow, there's literally not a single accurate sentence in your comment. Not a single one! I'm stopping here since you don't seem to be interested in facts at all.
        ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
        Read the report and tell me that the cause is renewables and not reactive power through a Swiss cheese model of mismanagement. https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/blackout/28-april-2025-iberian-blackout/#Publications_&_Documents https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/blackout/28-april-2025-ib... And then you deny the local law in my jurisdiction, because you can’t accept the outcome. Then you say that this FERC requirement for renewables managing reactive power from 2016 does not exist. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/RM16-1-000.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/RM16-1-000.... Then you say that storage does not exist on any relevant scale. While this is reality. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/ https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2026/1/23/an-additional-6643gw18948gwh-added-cnesa-datalink-2025-annual-energy-storage-data-release https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2026/1/23/an-additional-664... Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Why can’t you stay with the truth?
mpweiher 6mo ago
HPC is 2 EPR reactors. At their design CF they will produce 25 TWh per year. Over the expected operating life of 80 years that will be 2000 TWh. At the $400/MWh you are postulating, that would be €800 billion of income. Although I am sure the operators wouldn't mind (15% ROI per year over 80 years is...nice) I am going to go with "your numbers are BS".

thatcat 6mo ago

If risk and disposal is factored into coal, gas, solar power, what would be cheaper? Nuclear has recyclable fuel processes and fail safe systems available.

ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet. Not sure what risk you think come from renewables and storage?
- littlestymaar 6mo ago
  > That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact. > Not sure what risk you think come from renewables The grid collapse risk (See what happened in Spain last year, which caused 8 deaths, more than every nuclear power plant accidents in the Western world combined…). Grid operators are currently investing a trillion Euro in the EU alone in order to adapt the grid to the new challenges caused by intermittent and distributed energy sources, and this will never be accounted for in renewable electricity prices… (hence the paradox: the more “cheap energy” is being deployed in Europe, the more expensive the electricity prices become). > and storage "Storage" doesn't exist yet as a most people imagine it. Batteries can help ease a few hours of peak load/low supply but that's pretty much it, pumped storage is very situational with limited deployment capabilities. So the risk is that the technology simply never materialize.
  - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
    It is not included. In my part of the world the authorities can demand a clean up bond as part of giving permission to build the project. That is done to ensure that you can’t skimp on your responsibilities. Then I just see misinformation on the Iberian blackout. Please go ahead and tell me how thermal planes not delivering the expected reactive power was caused by renewables. Please tell me how renewables can’t deliver reactive power when the US and all other sane grids have required them to do it for close to a decade. And with that we’re solving high 90s% of the grid. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough when we still need to solve agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping, industry and so on. All ignoring that storage on larger scales already exists.
    - littlestymaar 6mo ago
      Wow, there's literally not a single accurate sentence in your comment. Not a single one! I'm stopping here since you don't seem to be interested in facts at all.
      - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
        Read the report and tell me that the cause is renewables and not reactive power through a Swiss cheese model of mismanagement. https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/blackout/28-april-2025-iberian-blackout/#Publications_&_Documents https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/blackout/28-april-2025-ib... And then you deny the local law in my jurisdiction, because you can’t accept the outcome. Then you say that this FERC requirement for renewables managing reactive power from 2016 does not exist. https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/RM16-1-000.pdf https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/RM16-1-000.... Then you say that storage does not exist on any relevant scale. While this is reality. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-solar-storage-spring-2025/ https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2026/1/23/an-additional-6643gw18948gwh-added-cnesa-datalink-2025-annual-energy-storage-data-release https://en.cnesa.org/latest-news/2026/1/23/an-additional-664... Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Why can’t you stay with the truth?

mpweiher 6mo ago

HPC is 2 EPR reactors. At their design CF they will produce 25 TWh per year. Over the expected operating life of 80 years that will be 2000 TWh. At the $400/MWh you are postulating, that would be €800 billion of income. Although I am sure the operators wouldn't mind (15% ROI per year over 80 years is...nice) I am going to go with "your numbers are BS".