[jstummbillig]

Is this actually the prevailing analysis of the status quo? Is the best unsubsidized nuclear power plant we could technically build today actually cost effective or is it not? Can people with insight chime in? I just tried to google an answer and, from a layman's perspective without a horse in the race, there seems to be no single easily available answer.

As a side note, it irritates me how often this is the case for many simple and important (but, apparently, hard) questions, that must have a correct answer.

[bjourne]

See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger.

The real nail in the coffin are the huge uncertainties and capital costs. Suppose projections show that electricity demand will rise by 1000MW over the next ten years so new reactor is built. But what if demand only rises by 500MW? Then you have wasted billions that won't ever be recouped.

[realusername]

> See https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation..... Main finding is that newly built nuclear power is about twice as expensive as wind and 40% more expensive than solar power. Other studies come to similar conclusions. With the cost of solar and wind expected to decrease due to mass production and technology advancements, their advantage grows even larger.

I highly doubt they take the unreliability into account in their study. One MW of nuclear is worth much much more than a MW of solar or even worse wind since you can count on it.

I'd mention that there's not a single country in the world which currently succeeds as using solar & wind as their primary electricity generation.

[bjourne]

Modern wind farms are built offshore and with towers 200 meters high or higher. At those altitudes in such locations wind power is quite reliable.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If nuclear power megawatts was worth much more than wind power megawatts then why are many new wind farms being built but so few nuclear power plants? It seems to me that those who put their money where their mouth is do not think the superior reliability of nuclear power is enough to make their investments profitable.

[realusername]

> new wind farms being built but so few nuclear power plants?

Because of the initial investment, private companies already have trouble to project themselves just 5 years into the future and they lack the big picture. That's also why privately managed electricity generation just doesn't work.

> Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I'll believe what I see as well, there's not a single country in the world which manages to use wind & solar as their primary electricity source and there's nothing indicating any could in the future.