[Ajedi32]

> someone is losing money when a nuclear reactor is sitting around not generating 100% power

Isn't that true of literally _every_ possible means of power generation though? Sure, there's an opportunity cost to not running your equipment at 100% 24/7, but only if there's enough demand to actually use that excess energy. You could argue solar and wind have it worse, since they don't even have the option to reduce output when it isn't needed (or ramp it up when it is, though it's a bit weird to think of cloudy days as an "opportunity cost").

Really though, we shouldn't _need_ to argue about which option is cheaper all things considered. Just remove as many regulatory barriers as possible and let the market sort it out. The only issue is that, as it stands, the regulatory barriers to nuclear are way higher than the regulatory barriers for wind and solar. (Governments are bending over backwards to accommodate the later, while in many cases effectively banning the former.) I'm just advocating for equal treatment.

[Retric]

On a level playing field without any regulation or subsidies, nuclear gets crushed.

> Isn’t that true of literally _every_ possible means of power generation though?

No, some peaking power plants get paid to sit around not generating power so they will be there for extreme events. They are paid not for power but for the possibility to generate power. This is viable because their operating costs when off are very low. Nobody can afford to employ 1000 people at a nuclear reactor so that someday the grid might want them to turn on for a few hours a year from now.

The operation vs standby costs of various types of energy generation vary wildly. It’s actually profitable for a natural gas turbine operator to install solar panels that only get used 1/2 the time simply to offset their natural gas fuel costs.

Actually, seeing solar panels installed at a fossil fuel power plant is however seriously trippy.