[dTal]

I would say that 24/7 power you can have using real technology that actually exists today makes up for any claims you might make about "6x more expensive". More expensive than what? Magic non-existent grid storage?

It's all very well saying you think that "synthfuels" and "hydrogen stuff" WILL outperform nuclear, but the practical upshot is that you are arguing in favor of sitting around twiddling our thumbs hoping some new technology will save us, when we could be building nuclear plants. What do you suggest we do now that will substantially eat into fossil consumption?

[AtlasBarfed]

Go ahead and pretend grid storage is some pretend technology and isn't in actual production use.

That is honestly unhinged, and if nuclear proponents thing grid storage is some far off technology, they are more divorced from th economic reality than I thought.

Nuclear is 141$ per mwhr. Solar +storage is $45. Solar/wind are $24.

This pattern of improvement isn't some new phenomenon, and you can't pretend these are made up figures. Is storage pricing new? Yeah. Is the cost of battery backup going to drop? Virtually guaranteed with new sodium ion techs and the other stuff in the pipeline.

Attitudes like this frankly just validate that the entire current generation of the nuclear industry simply has a flawed and obsolete structure and outlook. They are simply ossified in a huge regulatory capture wall.

[_hypx]

Your bet is based off of magical batteries from the future. This is not at all a coherent counterargument to nuclear. Nevermind the very concept of having redundant systems, or admitting the possibility of nuclear getting cheaper.

You can easily be accused of Silicon Valley style innovation delusion. As if something being older or more "regulated" means it is bad. It is the same delusion that got Uber to lose billions until they changed the same per ride as any taxi company. In reality, facts don't care about how you think the world works.