[Mistletoe]

>No new U.S. nuclear plants are currently being built.

If it was a good idea, plants would be being built. People with much more expertise than us have crunched the numbers and they can’t make it work. It’s too expensive and that’s why there are no new plants being built. No amount of internet proselytizing will change this.

[kalleboo]

Both politicians and investors are too short-term in their motivations to use their actions to teach us anything.

It's clear the future is unreliable renewable (solar+wind) and batteries, with some pumped/hydro where it is geologically feasible. Because the renewables are so cheap to build, and the cheap renewables cause over-supply and the batteries are a cheap-steadily-getting-cheaper solution to that.

The tipping point comes when we need to start phasing out the base power for overnight and long bouts of bad weather.

So the pricing game to be made is, can nuclear be built cheap enough to compete with batteries for long-term base power?

Most likely to me is that nuclear will survive in places with worse weather (Nordic countries where the sun goes down for 3 weeks in winter) or poor geography (Japan), and sunnier places (like Texas, or most of the US even) will go full renewable+battery.

[melling]

Completely missing our emissions goals will change this attitude.