[boshomi]

Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces; there’s no turning back. Solar and wind power generate cheap electricity in abundance, and midday electricity prices in Europe regularly dip into negative territory (as low as minus €500 (sic!) on May 1!).

Modern grids do not require high-risk investments in ultra-inert baseload power that ultimately fails to find a market; instead, they require low-risk investments in highly flexible power sources, such as batteries or pumped-storage facilities and transmission upgrades, that can capture surplus electricity at low cost (sometimes negativ) and sell it hours later at favorable prices.

The 2036 electricity futures price for Germany is €70/MWh. The break-even point for France’s EDF for old nuclear power plants that had long since been written off financially was at roughly the same level in 2020. Due to rising labor costs, their break-even point is now significantly higher. There were solid economic reasons why EDF was recently nationalized 100%. New nuclear power plant construction in France is a foreseeable economic disaster. Private investors would have fled long ago.

[amarant]

Electricity prices in Sweden have tripled as a direct result of the political decision to shut down German nuclear power(interconnected grid)

Even the German government has admitted it was a mistake.[1]

Solar generates an abundance of electricity in the summer, but the winter production ranges from tiny to nothing.

The anti nuclear crowd loves looking at buildout graphs and saying we can replace all energy production with solar in x years, assuming energy usage remains the same.

It does not remain the same.

[1]https://www.foronuclear.org/en/updates/news/germanys-chancel...

[ZeroGravitas]

The specific German who "admitted it was a mistake" doesn't like wind turbines and thinks they'll be replaced by fusion in 10 years.

https://www.rechargenews.com/policy/merz-says-wind-power-is-...

> By then, Germany should "bring the world's first fusion reactor online." Its electricity would be so cheap "that no other generation methods will be needed,” Merz was quoted as saying.

[khafra]

If power is so cheap mid-day, why don't european buildings have sufficient air conditioning not to kill the elderly during heat waves? The laws restricting AC all have power conservation as their rationale.

[titanomachy]

Do old people not have air conditioning because the law prohibits it? I thought it was more that air conditioners are expensive, old people in Europe are often somewhat poor and on fixed incomes, and a lot of historically temperate places in Europe have no tradition of AC.

Certainly a lot of the young wealthy people I know in Europe have AC, even outside of the really hot places.

[khafra]

The death toll per heat wave can easily hit 5 figures in just france. A hybrid portable-minisplit that will cool a 100m^2 apartment is under a thousand euros, and draw just under a Mwh per year. A portable to cool one small bedroom is much less power-efficient, but can often be found between 200 and 300. That's not cheap, per se, but funerals aren't much less expensive in Europe than in America. Many EU countries allow some limited cooling in public buildings, but I still sweat in most grocery stores, malls, libraries, museums, etc. during hot weather--they just don't take air conditioning to a comfortable temperature as worth the power bill, the way America does.

[nrjames]

Paris is working on some type of underground cooled-water network for AC in industrial settings.

https://56paris.com/en/cooling-paris-from-below-the-city-s-u...

[titanomachy]

Yeah, it makes sense to get it and they'll have it eventually. It's a cultural shift as much as anything, it will take time.

The cooler parts of the US (e.g. the PNW) are also gradually increasing AC adoption as things heat up, but 20 years ago it was pretty much unheard of.

[ecshafer]

Why are ACs so expensive in Europe? A window AC can be had from Walmart for like $120.

[titanomachy]

Mini-splits are more complicated than window ACs, they allow the indoor and outdoor components to be separated.

Most European homes don't have the kind of window that you could stick an AC in, the windows hinge rather than sliding up and down. You can get one of those floor units with a hose for probably ~€300 though.

[Bayart]

It's cultural latency. Europe is the faster warming continent and the buildings were perfectly fit for purpose 30 years ago. Old people lived their entire lives without AC and plainly dislike it.

[noosphr]

Nuclear power died 20 years ago for 40 years now.

Meanwhile Chinas 2060 plan for a carbon zero grid with 25% nuclear and 100% over provisioning is right on track.

[ZeroGravitas]

So their 2060 target is a lower percentage than the EU has today? Which is itself 50% lower than the EU had 20 years ago.

I think that's a pretty good support for the notion that nuclear is past its prime.

[noosphr]

It is 50% of daily power consumption. They are planning on overbuild the network by 100% so it can be carbon neutral and cost effective even if the sun stops shining, the wind stops blowing and the rain stops raining for a year. Currently between 50% to 100% of generation capacity is idle in China as government policy to encourage growth.

This is the resilience something civilisation depends upon should have. Not the duct tape and chewing gum that the Us and EU networks are made of.

[gosub100]

And we call them the enemy

[Ringz]

They are not on track.

From https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-St...

> According to the China Nuclear Energy Association, despite higher output, nuclear’s share of China’s total electricity production slightly slipped from 4.9 percent in 2023 to 4.7 percent in 2024, (Energy Institute data indicate a 3.7-percent increase in net production and a drop from 4.7 percent to 4.5 percent of the nuclear share).40 The remarkable share decline occurred because China’s electricity consumption grew by 6.8 percent or 627 TWh—significantly larger than Germany’s total annual demand—to a total of over 9,850 TWh, and the country added a combined 357 GW of solar and wind capacity (278 GW and 79 GW, respectively) in the same year compared to just 3.5 GW of new nuclear.41

And from https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-St...

> Targets vs. Reality

> China has dominated global nuclear power development over the past quarter-century, though its ambitious latest Five-Year Plan targets have proven challenging to meet. The 10th Five-Year Plan (2001–2005) put forward a policy of “moderate development of nuclear power,” targeting around 8.6 GW gross operating capacity by 2005,61 with 7.1 GW gross achieved in reality. (All Five-Year Plan capacity numbers quoted hereunder are gross gigawatts). During this period, China connected six new units to the grid—including two French 900-MW reactors at Ling Ao and two Canadian 668-MW CANDU 6 reactors at Qinshan—and completed the development of the CPR-1000, China’s indigenized version of the French M310 900-MW design that would become the workhorse of its early nuclear fleet. The 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) called on China to pursue “an active development of nuclear power” with a target of 10 GW gross operating by 2010.62 With 10.9 GW gross operating at the end of 2010, that target was slightly over-achieved. This period saw the construction starts for Westinghouse’s two AP-1000s at Sanmen in 2009 and AREVA’s EPRs at Taishan in 2009–2010, China’s first Gen III projects. Construction commenced on 29 units, most of which were CPR-1000 reactors. Fukushima’s March 2011 disaster fundamentally reshaped China’s nuclear trajectory during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011–2015). The government imposed a moratorium on new approvals to conduct comprehensive safety reviews. Existing plants and Gen II reactors under construction had to undergo major upgrades including enhanced flood barriers, backup power system overhauls, and seismic reinforcements.63 When approvals resumed, China adopted a strict “Gen III-only” policy requiring passive safety features and core-catchers. Operational capacity reached just 28.7 GW by 2015 versus a target of 40 GW.64 Nevertheless, the period closed with construction beginning on Fuqing-5 and -6 as well as Fangchenggang-3, China’s first Hualong One reactors, representing its indigenous Gen III technology. The 13th Five-Year Plan (2016–2020) aimed for 58 GW operational capacity plus 30 GW under construction while establishing the Hualong One as an exportable technology and advancing systems like the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR-PM) and fast reactors.65 However, domestic capacity reached only 51 GW by 2020 and 17.5 GW under construction constrained by the ongoing inland reactor ban— a controversy unheard of in other nuclear countries limiting nuclear power plant development to the seashore—and extended construction timelines for Generation III units. In August 2019, the U.S. added CGN to its Entity List,66 citing national security concerns regarding alleged attempts to acquire U.S. technology for military purposes.67 This restricted CGN’s access to certain technologies and affected its international partnerships, including involvement in nuclear projects in the United Kingdom. Later, CNNC was also added to the Entity List.68 The sanctions reinforced China’s focus on self-reliance, accelerating the transition from foreign technologies to the domestically developed Hualong One design. With an operating capacity of around 61 GW as of mid-2025, the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025)69 target of 70 GW operational capacity is out of reach. According to plans, 4.5 GW are scheduled to come online in 2025, but no new reactor started up in the first half of the year. COVID-19 pandemic disruptions to global supply chains, combined with delays caused by mandatory safety upgrades, have created persistent bottlenecks. First-of-a-kind Hualong One projects saw numerous delays (see Figure 23). Meanwhile, plans for innovative projects like offshore floating nuclear power platforms appear to have stalled, with 2023 reports suggesting the program may have been suspended over safety and feasibility concerns.70

[pfdietz]

Remember all those projections of solar adoption that, year after year, consistently underestimated future growth?

It turns out the same has been happening with nuclear, only in reverse: the agencies doing the projections have consistently, year after year, overestimated nuclear growth.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...

(in particular figure 3.)

[Ringz]

Good catch! Thanks for that study!

[TitaRusell]

Yeah they found gas in the Netherlands which was exported for cheap all across Western Europe.

It's not because of hippies or Chernobyl that nuclear reactors never got built. A gas turbine is cheap and simple.

[pfdietz]

Gas turbines are a modern scientific/technological miracle.

The materials science of turbine blades is awesome. Most materials can't be used above about 1/2 their absolute melting temperature as they become subject to creep. But turbine blades are made with nickel and aluminum (and a carefully optimized mix of alloying elements) that just happen to form phases that become less subject to creep as they are heated (until much closer to the melting point).

The reason (as I understand it) for this is that the intermetallic phase of NiAl prevents migration of single linear dislocations; pairs of linear dislocations are needed to migrate together. But at elevated temperature these pairs dissociate from each other and migration is inhibited.

[Gud]

Nuclear power has been amazing for my native country Sweden and I do not believe for a nanosecond that there were “economic forces” that shut down many of our operational nuclear plants.

It was political lunacy, in Sweden and Germany and many other countries.

[pjc50]

I take a center position on this: every year new nuclear looks worse economically, but that's not a good reason to shut down already operating plants.

The safety issues .. I think the combination of low probability (unknown) and potentially huge cost (Chernobyl affected almost the entirety of Europe!) make it exceptionally prone to toxic discourse. You just can't assign reliable numbers to it. There's a risk of ending up with a Space Shuttle situation, where because a disaster would be so bad everyone in the chain downplays the risk until an O-ring explodes.

Maybe we can try SMRs once they're actually in production, but somewhere else can try them first on their own expense.

[rob74]

The problem is just that already operating plants don't become safer or more state of the art as time goes by. I'd be as comfortable with a 70-year-old nuclear power plant as I would be flying in a 70-year-old airplane...

[Ringz]

And don’t forget they will get more expensive over time.

[ttkari]

It certainly was political - with tax policies, you can make nuclear uneconomic which is exactly what happened in Sweden. For decades, the production and capacity taxes were a material part of the operating cost for operators. Only some 10 years ago the political positions started to change and become more nuclear-friendly.

[amarant]

Yeah our green parties brag about how they have made nuclear unfeasible via political means, and then turn around to say it's market forces. It's so stupid I want to cry.

Miljöpartiet in particular is anti-science and has among the worst environment policies of all major Swedish parties. For example they're working hard to ban spreading sludge from wastewater treatment plants on fields. Apparently phosphors are single-use.

And of course there this gem: https://omni.se/mp-politikern-slosar-resurser-pa-rent-hittep...

[Bayart]

There's more to it than first degree economics. If you include broader externalities, including loss through pollution and energy dependency, it makes more sense. Of course it's harder to measure hence harder to advocate, but in my opinion it's one those cases where intuition hits close to the truth. Of course being French I'm highly biased, but I'm glad we went the way we did, trading CapEx for stability.

[dyauspitr]

Then why are China and India building so much nuclear?

[ZeroGravitas]

They're not.

Both have a reducing share of nuclear in their electricity mix as they're not building enough to keep up with their demand growth.

Luckily both are deploying wind and solar at a rate that outpaces their demand growth.

[mpweiher]

The are.

They are both building rapidly and share was not in the OP's claim.

China has signed up to the international tripling pledge and now has the capacity to build 50 plants a year.

India is building rapidly and is planning on tripling nuclear capacity by 2032.

https://ddnews.gov.in/en/india-to-triple-nuclear-power-capac...

Not sure if India is going to triple its electricity demand by 2032. Seems rather doubtful, but if you have evidence for that tripling of electricity demand

But even if what you claim about falling share were true (it's not), a sinking share is not a contradiction to increasing absolute capacity, which was the claim.

[mpweiher]

> Nuclear power has been killed off by economic forces

That turns out not to be the case. Everywhere nuclear was killed off it was killed off purely by political forces.

> there’s no turning back

That also turns out not to be the case:

1. Sweden enacted a nuclear phase-out, turned back

2. Japan shut off all its nuclear plants, turned back

3. Belgium enacted a nuclear phase out, turned back

4. Taiwan enacted a nuclear phase out, is turning back

5. Italy enacted a nuclear phase out, is turning back

In fact, the number of countries that have turned back from a nuclear phase-out to re-embracing nuclear power is larger than the number of countries that are sticking to nuclear phase-outs. Never mind the countries that never embraced that particular madness ("World's Dumbest Energy Policy") in the first place or that are just now turning to nuclear power.

Countries representing 70% of the world's GDP have agreed to triple nuclear generating capacity, and that doesn't include India, which has its own plans to triple much sooner.

> [electricity prices in] negative territory

That's not a good thing. It means the electricity is worth less than nothing, essentially garbage, not that it doesn't cost anything to produce. In fact, it costs a lot of money to first produce this useless electricity and then more money to dispose of it. A lose-lose.

One of the reasons Germany, for example, has among the highest electricity prices in the world. And this correlation of high intermittent renewable penetration and high electricity prices holds worldwide.

> The break-even point for France’s EDF for old nuclear power plants that had long since been written off financially was at roughly the same level [€700 in 2020.

Also not true. Even the ARENH price was €40/MWh in 2020. And that still left margin. German plants were delivering electric at around €20-€30 / MWh.

> There were solid economic reasons why EDF was recently nationalized 100%

EDF was not recently nationalized. It was always a state company, with 100% state ownership for most of its existence. For a brief time, around 15% were held by private entities. These were bought out to simplify control for the upcoming nuclear investment program. At the same time, investments in intermittent renewables have been scaled back.

[Neil44]

Solar and wind are still heavily subsidized are they not? If they're so economically amazing why are they subsidized?

[Someone]

I’m not sure they are heavily subsidized (alone or compared to other energy sources), but let’s ignore that.

Because they require an upfront investment that many households cannot make.

Also, whether such investments make economical sense for companies hugely depends on interest rate, and that fluctuates.

Because of that, a country with a long term goal to decrease dependency on non-renewables may want to subsidize such investments.

[AdamN]

I'm not sure why subsidies are per se bad. But also almost all infrastructure is subsidized regardless: roads, trains (cargo as well), ports, nuclear, coal, etc...

[Neil44]

I did not express an opinion on whether subsidies are good or bad :)

[AdamN]

You expressed an opinion with how you framed it.

[Neil44]

I think solar and wind are a good idea, and subsidies can be a useful tool, I think making a statement about how cheap solar and wind are without mentioning that they're subsidized is not entirely accurate or honest.

[pfdietz]

Given that we're approaching 1 TW of new solar capacity installed globally each year, who do you think is doing the subsidizing?

[RugnirViking]

because they're really important? both for the planet but also for strategic energy independance (no gas from russia, no oil from hormuz or america, light from the sun and wind from the air is all thats needed)