6 ms·

The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for

The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.

dalyons 18d ago
thats, not true at all. Safety costs a little, but they are fundamentally massively complicated, huge, specialized, EXPENSIVE things to build. They require 100s of staff to run at all times. The insurance is so expensive only nation states can back them. The economics are flawed because on modern grids with cheap renewables, they will never pay back the ridiculous up front capex. Relaxing regulations changes very little about this situation. China and Koreas are massively state subsidized (koreas 51%, chinas 100%). Which obscures the real cost, and these state enterprises dont have to pay insurance or decommissioning. Which is the only way you can make them work today - massive state subsidies. if your argument is "well without regulations someone could build a reactor that somehow avoids all these economic constraints" . Maybe, but today thats a fantasy.
- UltraSane 18d ago
  You can't compare wind and solar to nuclear you have to compare wind and solar with enormous amounte of battery storage which is extremely expensive and it would be hard to make enough storage
  - defrost 18d ago
    For interest, solid actual real world as of now numbers on solar + wind + battery storage in South Australia: Renewables Revolution in South Australia (April 2026) https://sagj.scholasticahq.com/article/160759-the-renewables-revolution-in-south-australia https://sagj.scholasticahq.com/article/160759-the-renewables... Some hand waving on full nuclear build out across all Australia: https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/how-many/ https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/how-many/ That is soft on timeline, skills and expertise, sourcing to make it happen, etc. All the things that caused the Australian scientific body's energy feasibility report to conclude that nuclear in Australia (no existing reactors, staff, etc) wasn't economic or rational given so much can be done with the upfront cost of nuclear that immediately begins with returning energy compared to an uncertain timeline and blowouts not returning energy for ???
    - UltraSane 18d ago
      Australia is the best case scenario for solar power. It doesn't work as well in a lot of places that don't get so much sun.
      - defrost 18d ago
        > Australia is the best case scenario for solar power. Yes. (and no - it's a big country) The USofA is also a large country with the same land area (mainland USofA at least) and many places suitable for solar and wind. The South Australian capital, Adelaide, is on the 35th parallel (South), what works there likely works in the US at or below the 35th parallel North. The essential point is that nuclear isn't a flat parameter free answer to all that ails - some places it makes no economic sense, other places it makes good economic sense ... and there's a world in between.
  - dalyons 17d ago
    You just keep moving the goalposts and not responding to arguments. Until you have some idea of how nuclear is ever going to be cost competitive on today’s grids, good day to you.

The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.

dalyons 18d ago

thats, not true at all. Safety costs a little, but they are fundamentally massively complicated, huge, specialized, EXPENSIVE things to build. They require 100s of staff to run at all times. The insurance is so expensive only nation states can back them. The economics are flawed because on modern grids with cheap renewables, they will never pay back the ridiculous up front capex. Relaxing regulations changes very little about this situation. China and Koreas are massively state subsidized (koreas 51%, chinas 100%). Which obscures the real cost, and these state enterprises dont have to pay insurance or decommissioning. Which is the only way you can make them work today - massive state subsidies. if your argument is "well without regulations someone could build a reactor that somehow avoids all these economic constraints" . Maybe, but today thats a fantasy.

UltraSane 18d ago
You can't compare wind and solar to nuclear you have to compare wind and solar with enormous amounte of battery storage which is extremely expensive and it would be hard to make enough storage
- defrost 18d ago
  For interest, solid actual real world as of now numbers on solar + wind + battery storage in South Australia: Renewables Revolution in South Australia (April 2026) https://sagj.scholasticahq.com/article/160759-the-renewables-revolution-in-south-australia https://sagj.scholasticahq.com/article/160759-the-renewables... Some hand waving on full nuclear build out across all Australia: https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/how-many/ https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/how-many/ That is soft on timeline, skills and expertise, sourcing to make it happen, etc. All the things that caused the Australian scientific body's energy feasibility report to conclude that nuclear in Australia (no existing reactors, staff, etc) wasn't economic or rational given so much can be done with the upfront cost of nuclear that immediately begins with returning energy compared to an uncertain timeline and blowouts not returning energy for ???
  - UltraSane 18d ago
    Australia is the best case scenario for solar power. It doesn't work as well in a lot of places that don't get so much sun.
    - defrost 18d ago
      > Australia is the best case scenario for solar power. Yes. (and no - it's a big country) The USofA is also a large country with the same land area (mainland USofA at least) and many places suitable for solar and wind. The South Australian capital, Adelaide, is on the 35th parallel (South), what works there likely works in the US at or below the 35th parallel North. The essential point is that nuclear isn't a flat parameter free answer to all that ails - some places it makes no economic sense, other places it makes good economic sense ... and there's a world in between.
- dalyons 17d ago
  You just keep moving the goalposts and not responding to arguments. Until you have some idea of how nuclear is ever going to be cost competitive on today’s grids, good day to you.