[sensanaty]

I don't think anyone reasonable is saying we should only do nuclear. The actual position is that we need a mix of both nuclear and renewables while ramping down non-renewable sources as fast as possible, because you need both intermittent cheap generation and reliable baseload that doesn't care if the wind stops blowing or clouds roll over the panels.

The pricing story remains unconvincing to me. LCOE comparisons measure the cost of producing a unit of electricity, but they don't account for what it costs to actually integrate that electricity into a working grid. Solar and wind are cheap on paper, but they still need storage or backup generation to cover the hours they're not producing, and that cost gets left out of the simple dollar per MWh number. Once you factor in grid balancing and storage, the gap closes a lot, and in some studies it disappears entirely depending on the region's wind and solar resources. Obviously things have to be considered in the context of where we're putting these power plants, Norwegians can probably afford to rely a lot more on offshore wind and hydro than a place like Serbia could.

Nuclear plants will obviously be expensive to build, and will likely always be more expensive than renewables to initially build just due to the sheer complexity involved when compared to renewable sources, but I can't think of a better use of that money personally, especially compared to how much gets spent on far worse things like chucking a billion dollars worth of missiles at Iran[0] for quite literally no reason and especially benefit to anyone (other than arms industry I guess) whatsoever.

Also, already built and paid off nuclear plants are consistently some of the cheapest electricity around, often profitable without any subsidy at all. 70%(!!!!) of France's electricity comes from nuclear. They exported more electricity last year than countries like Belgium consumes in an entire year. They enjoy some of the cheapest power prices in the region because of their historical nuclear fleet, and had people had the same attitude back in the day (looking at you, German "green" party), that fleet would've never gotten built. Letting your offspring enjoy the shade of the tree you plant today and all that stuff, it'll always be too expensive until we actually hunker down and just build the bloody things.

And yeah, new builds like Flamanville have been a mess on cost and timeline, that's a fair criticism of new construction, but it doesn't erase what a mature nuclear fleet does for a grid once it's actually built, and can generally be applied to pretty much any infrastructure project anywhere in the world.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48845514 - US seeks cheaper hunter-killer drones after Iran destroys $1B worth of Reapers

[_aavaa_]

To say that paid off nuclear is profitable without subsidies and then mention France is deeply funny.

Putting aside the actual subsidies, there’s the uncomfortable truth that nuclear operators are not on the hook for long tail risks and costs. The government (read us, the taxpayers) in most countries will foot the bill for decomisioning if the company goes under, and it will foot the bill for accidents.

To talk about them not getting subsidies once they are paid off is to ignore the fact that no reactor would ever get built without the government providing them a guaranteed backstop.

[sensanaty]

> To say that paid off nuclear is profitable without subsidies and then mention France is deeply funny.

Care to elaborate on what you find funny?

France's energy regulator (CRE) puts the actual cost of running its nuclear fleet at about ~€61/MWh for 2026-2028. EDF's (Électricité de France) own revenue estimate for 2026 nuclear generation is around €66/MWh. They are currently earning a profit on their power generation, the fleet pulls in over €5 billion annually just from selling the surplus to its neighbors. If that's the punchline of your joke I'm not seeing it.

French industrial electricity runs about €69/MWh vs £168/MWh in the UK, as an example.

> The government (read us, the taxpayers) in most countries will foot the bill for decomisioning

What better use is there of taxes than the running and decommissioning of power plants, nuclear or not? I'd much rather my tax money go to covering all the costs involved with nuclear, from initial construction and everything else involved than pretty much anything else most gov'ts waste their money on.

Who should be paying for it, in your mind?

> To talk about them not getting subsidies once they are paid off is to ignore the fact that no reactor would ever get built without the government providing them a guaranteed backstop.

Again, I fail to see how or why this is actually a problem. Power generation is probably the poster child for what governments should be handling and backstopping with tax money. You're also talking as if the large majority of power plants, and I mean coal, natural gas and even renewables aren't also covered by the exact same kind of government backstop.

In the US, nuclear's liability for an accident is capped around $16.3 Billion under the Price-Anderson Act, split across private insurance and an industry-funded pool.

Offshore oil liability is capped by law at $75 million (Yes, only MILLION) per incident, funded by a tiny per-barrel tax, and cleanup costs blow through that number constantly, which is why e.g. Deepwater Horizon needed a special one-off arrangement to handle at all. TVA's 2008 coal ash spill cost over a billion dollars to clean up and got passed straight onto ratepayers because TVA hit its own debt ceiling. And right now, in 2026, the EPA is actively proposing to weaken coal ash cleanup rules, meaning the backstop on coal's mess is getting worse, not better, while it's still being burned at scale.

So no, nuclear doesn't get some unique golden treatment here. Every energy source with real catastrophic tail risk gets a government backstop, because no private insurer on earth prices genuinely catastrophic low-probability events without one. The only difference is nuclear's cap is a known, bounded number attached to an industry with an extremely good actual safety record in reality, while coal's backstop is open-ended and attached to something that poisons rivers and drinking water on a rolling basis without needing a single accident to do it.

[itsmek]

>Why do so many otherwise seemingly rational people pretend that nuclear is the answer to our energy needs?

>I don't think anyone reasonable is saying we should only do nuclear.

I didn't interpret the other post to imply only nuclear. I interpreted to mean "why do so many people think nuclear is better than battery". My understanding is that LCOS+LCOE for batt+solar is quite close to nuclear cost and will only go down further, plus it has the advantage of being safer in the catastrophic case.

[kulahan]

How could you possibly know the cost and pollution levels of batteries not-yet invented? The pollution from a nuclear power plant is one 55-gallon barrel of waste per reactor per year, and ZERO batteries are that clean. Like, what are you even thinking here?

[_aavaa_]

This ignores the pollution to make that fuel and the pollution to build the plan (both of which you are already counting on the battery side). Plus the pollution of all the backup generators that they require and must test regularly.

[kulahan]

There is significant pollution created while digging up the rare earth materials which are needed to make solar panels, and batteries are some of the dirtiest things we make.

There is virtually zero pollution in a generator which does not typically run. The only waste is the need to occasionally change out the fuel. It’s a rounding error at worst.

This is also ignoring how much safer nuclear is than any other form of power generation, and pollution concerns are ostensibly, at least in part, about improving health and lives of humans.

Bro come on lol.