[prettygood]

You're judging to quickly without looking at all parameters.

The cost of nuclear power has only been rising and the price per kWh is much higher compared to wind or solar.

Building cost and time has never been correctly estimated for new plants. Just ask France, UK and Finland. Which resulted in going way over budget.

All of this while prices for solar and wind are lowering... Obviously you can't rely solely on wind and solar but at the moment it would make more sense to invest in those solutions compared to nuclear, for some countries.

[JumpCrisscross]

> cost of nuclear power has only been rising and the price per kWh is much higher compared to wind or solar

Do we have numbers from China? They're actually pursuing this technology. The West, largely, is not. I'd thus be hesitant about comparing numbers from a stagnated industry from one with active R&D.

[rllearneratwork]

wind and solar are heavily subsidized and nuclear is, arguably, over regulated despite being statistically the safest source of energy (as measured in deaths / twh)

[eldaisfish]

every time someone mentions the cost of wind and solar, i remind them of the same point - there are lots of costs that are not borne by wind and solar. The “low” cost is primarily due to their fuel cost being zero and that’s not inherently a bad thing.

The problem is in assuming that the current “cost” scales linearly. it does not.

Some examples of these costs are balancing, standby, frequency support and so on. At the moment, no “cost” metric for renewables includes these costs. They assume that all energy generated is consumed by the grid and this is increasingly not the case.