[kristopolous]

Even ignoring all of that, there's "time to first watt" - essentially if you break ground now, how quickly can you start producing power? Nuclear has years scale, wind and solar has weeks, if not days.

And also when better tech comes along, you can partially transition a farm to newer panels and resell the old ones after market.

Plus you don't have to build Onkalo Repository like systems to store waste for 100,000 years after you've produced your electricity.

It's wildly more feasible.

[fulafel]

"Years" is technically correct I guess - recent EPRs have taken 18 years from license to grid. Hinkley C 2012-2031 (projected). Flamanville 3 2006-2024. Olkiluoto 3 2005-2023. This is way too much latency. Every little bit helps of cours but it's hopeless optimism to think nuclear meaningfully helps the climate disaster for the foreseeable future.

[karmakurtisaani]

I have this same issue with fusion. Who cares if the fuel is practically free, when building and operating the plant is extremely expensive and prone to failures due to the sheer complexity.

Of course the tech and science is cool, possibly useful in space or other niche environments, but whenever I see fusion proposed as some general energy solution, I just roll my eyes and move on.

[kristopolous]

People really love scifi on hn, and that's fine ... but the investment capital has spoken and renewables are being funded 30x nuclear. Not 30% more, 3,000% more. It's even 2x over ogc infra (oil, gas, coal)

https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id...

It's a 12-1 over OGC in what the IEA labels "advanced economies" https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2025

[TheOtherHobbes]

We'll have direct antimatter annihilation at scale before we have fusion. It's basically a physics research project, with zero potential for commercial use.

There's already a convenient fusion reactor fairly close by, and it's unlikely to stop operating any time soon.

[naasking]

> Even ignoring all of that, there's "time to first watt" - essentially if you break ground now, how quickly can you start producing power? Nuclear has years scale, wind and solar has weeks, if not days.

France and China have built nuclear plants in 6 years, and they provide stable power for over 40 years, unlike wind turbines and panels which last maybe 20 for panels (if you're lucky), and a few years for turbine failures, and neither provide stable power.

Renewables have their place but people really need to stop with this panacea nonsense.

[ZeroGravitas]

Panels are warrantied for 25 or 30 years at a specific level of performance, with 30 year old installs still working today and 40 years is an expected lifetime for a modern panel before it will dip below that warranted level but still be producing energy with minimal upkeep.

Why do think the two countries you mention as being capable of quickly building nuclear are in fact much more quickly deploying renewables?

[naasking]

Panel damage happens from more than just the sun, eg. hail, sand/dust, wind, branches, etc. Warranty doesn't cover that.

> Why do think the two countries you mention as being capable of quickly building nuclear are in fact much more quickly deploying renewables?

Short-term political expediency is not an argument for technical superiority or fitness for purpose.