[hn_throwaway_99]

Well, if you're talking about "the current state of technology", the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity.

I'm all for keeping existing nuclear plants online, but I don't think building new ones is the right decision.

Also, yes, there are viable green hydrogen plants being built today: https://totalenergies.com/media/news/press-releases/total-an... . Also, France is likely to lead in this area because they just got hydrogen produced with nuclear to be considered "green", which is a great thing in my opinion.

[epups]

> the general consensus as I understand it is that building new nuclear power plants is not cost effective with other forms of energy storage/generation capacity.

Different forms of energy generation serve different purposes. I hope you can see why comparing nominal prices of solar panel installations vs a nuclear power plant is misguided. The latter can take you through a tough winter, the former cannot. Renewables are great, let's keep building them. For the times where they cannot help us, we can then choose to use a technology that is costly in dollars (nuclear) or lives (gas/oil/coal).

[hn_throwaway_99]

You're mistaking operational costs with capital costs.

Nuclear has huge up front capital costs, which makes building new plants a non-starter if it is believed that other storage options (including batteries and things like green hydrogen) will be cheaper before the lifespan of a power plant can essentially recoup its large up front costs.

[epups]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that just because renewables are cheaper, you cannot simply replace anything with them or you would have severe unreliability.