New Nuclear Plants in the US - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 05:55:01 pm
content: I am pleased to see that theUS may finally start to get some new advanced nuclear power plants. I am not aware of any better method for handling base load at scale. Our operating plants are ancient, and the designs and technology have advanced significantly since the last plant was built.I believeChina is currently leading the worldin the construction of advanced/modern nuclear power plants.This Idaho plant will be the firstto break ground in a long, long time.I think that a mix of nuclear and "greener" energy types is a good fit for each other to remake the world's power grids. I have been considering a solar installation on my home. One has to wonder how the power grid will evolve as the source and demand migrate over the system.In the US, Hawaii leads the way in private solar installations as a percentage of installations on homes. This has been accelerated in lots of states by government tax benefits to offset the cost of the installations. The interesting dynamic there is, like EVs, solar power tax breaks benefit more wealthy people. The problematic outcome is likely not discussed enough. As more affluent people withdraw from the pool of paying customers, the fixed infrastructure cost becomes a significantly higher percentage for the remaining grid customers to share, driving up the cost of energy for poorer individuals who can't afford the upfront investment in generating energy at home, even if they own their own homes.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 08:04:50 pm
content: No. Just no.On the "three strikes" principle:Three Mile IslandChernobylFukushimaAnd there are other, less-known incidents (like the Rio Puerco uranium mining spoils disaster that poisoned the Colorado River back in the 1980s)I was an anti-nuclear activist in a previous lifetime. I have not changed my mind about that toxic and totally unnecessary technology. And no, my mind's not made of cement; I have read about and considered the technology since then, including the supposed new "safer" reactor designs being pushed by B. Gates and others, but it's a different day, same shit.Not to mention the elephant in the room which is nowhere near a solution, which is the problem of nuclear waste storage. That's actually the worst part of the equation: where do we put all that shit? Nobody has yet figured that out, and that's many, many decades after we knew we had a serious problem on our hands.As Amory Lovins put it, it's using one of the highest forms of technology to ... boil water. We can do better than that.

author: UnijunctionTransistor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:05:46 pm
content: We are in the proverbial “between a rock and a hard place” when it comes to electric energy.Electric vehicles, massive data centers fueled by IA processing, more of the world’s population raising their standards of living: electric energy consumption is on the rise. And let’s not forget significant water shortages and the energy-hungry desalination plants projected.Many decades ago, the Caterpillar company would post an advertisement: “There are no simple choices, only intelligent solutions”, or words to the effect. then describe a massive infrastructure project which Cat machinery had helped solve.Since this is going to quickly become a political thread, all I am going to comment is that we will require to use ALL THE AVAILABLE technologies. No simple choices….

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:22:30 pm
content: Seems to me that using one of the highest forms of technology to boil water makes more sense than using it to enable the masses to create youtube shorts of monkeys using a multimeter.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:28:33 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 27, 2025, 08:04:50 pmPiper AlphaExxon ValdezDeepwater HorizonNot to mention the less well known failures of the hydro-electric dams on the Vajont in Italy, and the Banqiao in China.Energy production on the scale we demand it is risky, however we go about it. Whether it appeals to your personal sensibilities or not, the nuclear industry has killed far, far fewer than others and has been responsible for far less environmental damage too.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:37:13 pm
content: I wish them luck but I'm not optimistic. The main problem with nuclear power is that it's very expensive and takes a long time to build. I'm skeptical that a fast reactor is going to magically solve those problems, especially on a basically unproven design.For the most part, these "novel" designs are interesting attempts to solve the wrong problem. They are trying to solve fuel availability, or waste management issues. That's fine but those aren't the biggest obstacle to nuclear power in the US. We have plenty of fuel and on site storage is good enough for the life of a reactor, off site is only needed to greenfield the site after decomissionig.Construction cost and time are the critical problems. People claim that novel reactor designs can solve that but usually that is mostly the difference between a proof of concept vs. a fully engineered design.A big tell is to compare the claimed cost to something like a coal plant. A coal power plant is basically a nuclear power plant without the reactor. If someone is claiming they can build a nuclear plant cheaper than the capital cost of a similarly sized coal plant they are living in a fantasy.If instead of a sodium cooled fast reactor they said: "we are going to build a revised AP1000 with improvement to address the delays that the Vogtle project experienced" I would be more optimistic. Even a "medium modular" reactor design that was still a basic conventional design, but claimed to be easier to build I would be optimistic.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: UnijunctionTransistor on September 27, 2025, 09:05:46 pmYes, indeed, everything is political. I probably shouldn't have mentioned government subsidies for wealthy people's solar installs as that lends to politics. A solar install is something I've been considering so its topical to me.Quote from: NE666 on September 27, 2025, 09:28:33 pmThere's people that are afraid of flying too; even though its the safest way to travel.Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, most reliable supplier for base load demands.There's not even a second place.It is hilarious that people worry about where to put nuclear waste of fission plants, while burning coal and pouring it into their lungs, water, and food.I have argued to folks to take in a seminar or read up on modern designs. Learn about modern reactors that burn the waste of the older generation. Jaded age makes me believe more and more in the idea that you can't fix stupid.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 09:54:32 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 09:44:59 pmStrawman there. I'm also dead-set against coal-fired power, which as you point out is at least as hazardous as nuclear.QuoteI love it: "Just trust us. We'll get it right this time, we promise. No more meltdowns, no more hazardous waste, just cheap safe electricity for all your blockchain miners and "AI" data centers."Yeah, we know how well that works out ...

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 11:20:19 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 05:55:01 pmTrump announced that the US was going to re-activate one of the long shut down Three Miles Island nuclear reactorsweeks ago, And at the same news conference he announced that the US would soon build (IIRC) sevennewnuclear power stations. It's FULL SPEED AHEAD and dammed the consequences as far as this administration is concerned. The only question will be if they can get any of them built before the other party gains control of the presidency and shuts all nuclear down again. My guess is that they won't, it takes too long to design and build one and I think that the greens will keep everything tied in in court for many decades to come.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 11:26:41 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 09:44:59 pmThis statement contains an assumption which is unwarranted, implicitly linking generation with supply as a synchronous condition. "Base load" is a pattern of consumption, not inherently of supply, and that is too often forgotten.It also omits a few relevant adjectives as well as ROI.To explain by analogy, how do you get water out of a tap? The principal methods of large scale provision are filtration whether of waste water or seawater, and capture in storage buffers aka dams. These have differing energy, consumables, waste management, and environmental impacts, and not all geographic locations allow equal weightings of those factors for choice.Translate that into energy production, storage and consumption in different countries and locations.For a pretty easy example, as of the equinox our household base load (and all greater consumption) is entirely handled by storage based on a generation capacity nominally a third of the battery size, with generation effectively operational only half a day. Supply and consumption are asynchronous thanks to a buffer.* To clarify any confusion, cyclotron subsequently modified his original post which I have quoted, acknowledging that he had done so to clarify his own intent.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 27, 2025, 11:46:12 pm
content: When it comes to nuclear energy ("nucular" according to G.W. Bush), let's don't forget that what actually killed its momentum back in the 1980s onward was certainly not the efforts of people like me who were campaigning against it. This is the myth that's offered for the industry's stagnation.No, it was simple economics that killed the construction of new plants; they were simply too expensive, the ROI would have been negative, and that's why they got cancelled. Not because of little old ladies marching with signs.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 01:22:54 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 27, 2025, 11:26:41 pmThank you, I fixed that statement for more clarification. I apologize if it wasn't clear what my intent was.I am not aware of any system of energy generation that beats nuclear fission when considering overall cost to produce, impact to human health, and the environment are considered. If we only consider the cost of digging the source fuel out, building a fire and making some steam I'm sure there's a lot more economical sources out there.In particular locations such as where I grew up, we had a set of hydro dams that allowed for storage and use. They are horrible for the fish and the environment but great way to store energy. I believe Norway leads the planet in hydro. Iceland leads in geothermal. There are certainly corner cases and I would encourage a good review and complete and honest ROI to determine the best. Battery storage is cool but also suffers some dirty and down right nasty impacts and implications.Quote from: Stray Electron on September 27, 2025, 11:20:19 pmApologies but I think you have some misinformation.Microsoft contracted with Constellation Energy for the output of a plant being refittedand is slated to return to operation in 2027. The current administration did sign an order to overhaul the NRC with the intent to speed up reactor deployments. There's very strong "left" support (see Bill Gates) for nuclear energy. I don't expect this to change much under other administrations.There is broad support in the US for nuclear energy.The support for nuclear energy and reasons are clear. I'm not sure why anyone would want to support the current administrations"Beautiful clean coal and natural gas"generation in the long term. I do expect a swing in politics to slow those energy supply sources.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 01:51:36 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_wallwall didnt quite work outQuoteso i guess people pay for iti dont think i can trust mr orange hair with spending moneysure we could look forward to technology, excitement etcbut i dont think it will work out well for tax payers

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 02:15:15 am
content: QuoteI accept that this is your view, though I think you should read my comments about contextual generation options again.In this country "renewables" with firming (buffering) are the lowest cost source of energy for new builds, and are timely (span from concept to production, + project risk) whereas nuclear is neither. Further, products from teardown at end-of-life are substantially recyclable and this will become more available and economical as recycling demand increases.From available expert reports I am not aware that any of your three cited advantages for nuclear generation represent reality here. Simply, this country is very dry, has high insolation, and is always windy somewhere, usually everywhere; nor are we short of coastline.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 02:46:21 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 28, 2025, 02:15:15 amAustralia, US, Africa, Southern Europe, the same economics apply to the majority of the world. Even if you go for a low regulatory touch and high political value on Nuclear in a country like china:https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/REupdate/20240927.phpWind plus batteries still end up cheaper.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 03:36:29 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 01:22:54 amNo, I don't have "some misinformation". Nothing that you said contradicts what I said. I said that Trump announced that they are going to reactivate one of the old Three Mile Island reactors, I didn't say anything who was going to operate it or what they were going to use it for. And for the purpose of this discussion those are irrelevant but you are correct on both counts. Also I didn't say anything about the NRC but that would be beneficial in order to build any new reactors. However IMO the NRC is far from being the biggest hurdle in getting any new nuclear power stations approved and built in the US.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 03:41:12 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 02:46:21 amVery illustrative of regulating nuclear out of the competition. The grid storage that is implied in these charts isn't available or deployed. It's what might happen, as far as I know.According to the latest estimates I saw, global grid battery storage isn't expected to be common until sometime in the 2040s. In the meantime, we continue to burn coal and natural gas, waiting.The US actually builds reactors all the time. Every Nimitz class has two, and every Ford class has two. The Enterprise has 8, and the Ohio class has 1 each. But they don't have to deal with the regulations and the related costs.I am happy that we are building new reactors and pushing towards modernization of our nuclear energy fleet. As I mentioned, the majority of the US also wants more nuclear in the mix and less Coal and Gas.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 03:47:04 am
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 03:36:29 amFair enough. My confusion arises from the fact that Microsoft and Constellation Energy announced the refit and usage agreement when Biden was president. I looked for news of an announcement from Trump on the topic, but couldn't find one.And just because I can't find it doesn't mean he didn't. I'm sure he took credit if there was credit to be taken. If you have the link to the announcement, please share it.Thanks

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:06:26 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 27, 2025, 08:04:50 pmNuclear energy is not a "toxic and unnecessary technology" — in fact, it’s the only realistic option humanity has for sustaining industrial-scale energy production without catastrophic CO2emissions.Solar panels, wind turbines, and other “green” solutions are not capable of providing the enormous base load required for a modern industrial society.Statistically, nuclear has far fewer deaths per TWh produced than coal, oil, gas, or even hydro.Nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one. Current volumes are tiny compared to fossil waste. Moreover, modern reactor designs (fast reactors, molten salt reactors, etc.) enable closed fuel cycles, where today’s “waste” becomes tomorrow’s fuel. This reduces the volume and lifespan of waste dramatically.Yes, it boils water — but so do fossil fuels, geothermal, and even concentrated solar plants. The difference is that nuclear provides millions of times the energy density per kilogram of fuel. And today’s NPP advanced designs directly address safety, economics, and waste recycling.If humanity is serious about decarbonization while still supporting growing demand (AI datacenters, EVs, industrial production, heating/cooling), there is no alternative to nuclear. “Renewables only” is not just unrealistic — it risks locking us into continued fossil fuel dependence.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:20:09 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 27, 2025, 11:46:12 pmIt’s true that nuclear construction slowed down in the 1980s, but the reasons were more complex than just “too expensive.”The actual operational cost of nuclear electricity is among the lowest of any source — in many cases, a fraction of coal or gas. Once built, a nuclear plant provides stable, cheap electricity for decades. The problem in the 1980s was not that nuclear power was inherently uneconomical, but that demand patterns changed. Heavy industry — which had been the primary consumer of huge amounts of electricity — went into decline, especially in the US and Europe. At the same time, technological advances made production and consumption more energy-efficient. As a result, many plants faced reduced load factors, which distorted ROI calculations for new projects.The apparent high cost of nuclear was largely due to regulatory uncertainty, green tariffs fraud and subsidies, construction delays, and financing issues, rather than the fundamental economics of generating electricity. If you compare levelized cost per kWh, nuclear has always been extremely competitive.Today, however, the situation is changing. Global electricity demand is rising again — not only due to population growth, but also because of data centers, AI computing, electric vehicles, and electrification of heating/cooling. Renewable sources are not sufficient to cover this reliably. This is why serious countries are revisiting nuclear: the combination of low marginal cost, carbon neutrality, and ability to supply large baseload power is unmatched.It’s important to clarify what “too expensive” actually means. The operational cost of nuclear electricity is in fact extremely low. For example, in my country the production cost of 1 kWh from a nuclear plant is around0.01374USD — just a little bit over one cent! And this figure already includes all expenses: fuel, maintenance, amortization, preventive works, staff, and infrastructure. Few other energy sources can match that on a per-kWh basis.On the other hand, while the production cost of nuclear electricity is just over one cent per kWh, the retail price for consumers ranges anywhere from 0.10 to 0.26 USD per kWh or even higher. The gap does not reflect generation costs, but rather distortions introduced by subsidy mechanisms. A disproportionate share of these funds is directed toward so-called “green energy” — which contributes less than 10% of the total electricity generated, yet absorbs around 80% of the subsidies and surcharges paid by consumers.This creates the paradox where the cheapest and most reliable source of electricity is burdened, while the most expensive and least efficient source is artificially supported. In the long run, such an imbalance undermines both energy affordability and grid stability.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:37:53 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 03:41:12 amWrong. Zero regulation was stated or implied.The finding was that renewables with firming were cheaper. That is a commercial question. It is being built now, so "coal and gas to the 1940s" is misleading. Coal here will be lucky to last past 2035 given their age and unreliability, and no-one has the slightest intention of building a new coal-fired plant, so capitalism will drive expansion of renewables with firming. No energy companies here have been heard to lobby for nuclear power, because it fails many criteria some of which I have already mentioned, as well as cost.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:57:38 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 28, 2025, 04:37:53 amAustralia imports nearly all of its solar energy components from China and a significant portion of its wind energy. The US has tariffs supposedly to protect our ability to manufacture those systems. Those tariffs date back to Obama 2012-14. Those things skew the market as discussed in other threads. Some view it as a justified cost of remaining independent.The 2040s are approximately 14 years from now. I haven't seen plans for Australia to shutter all of its coal plants in that time, and you guys are building new natural gas generation.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:44:05 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 03:41:12 amThe scale of Nuclear power that is often proposed isn't here right now either. Both technologies scale fine. What people always leave out is that battery storage (or hydro) plays well with poorly modulateable nuclear plants and improves their economic viability. Battery and renewable installation is going ahead on the economic basis, battery capacity is growing already and supply can likely scale to meet demand (unless you premise some uneconomic volume of storage such as seasonal scale).The nuclear industry puts their regulatory overhead at just a few percent of the (incomplete) lifecycle:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-powerMore restrictive is siting and environmental effects from a higher regulating country.Any more unresearched propaganda to spout?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:50:31 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 04:57:38 amOk, so the US is arbitrarily increasing the cost of particular generation sources (reverse subsidy) their problem if that increases their power costs!Australia has a public schedule of when plants will exit the market:https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-informationPrevious governments wished upon future unknown carbon capture and abatement technologies to allow trading to offset coal generation, but what does any of that have to do with the cost of Nuclear generation vs the alternatives?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:57:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 04:20:09 amLaughable. Solar, wind, and hydro are almost entirely capital cost and minimal marginal cost.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:59:49 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 04:20:09 amThere is no way that price includes all costs, you could likely sell off the fuel (opportunity cost) and make more profit. Unless you put up some credible sources then stop posting that imaginary figure.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:14:29 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 05:50:31 amThere is a cost to providing independence. Energy independence is seen as important by many I know. The EU is seeing some pains related to buying energy from Russia. Australia may not have issues continuing to import from China, and I'm sure another country can step in and supply you with your kit if there's a falling out.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:34:26 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 05:55:01 pm.... maybe this time! Keep hopingQuoteMaybe, but China understands to keep nuclear as a tiny "spice" in their energy mix. They are not idiots.QuoteYou may think so, but you are wrong. Nuclear and wind/PV fit together poorly. They are both uncontrollable sources of energy, so called "unique snowflake" sources: wind/PV produces when it happens to be windy / sun happens to shine. Nuclear happens to produce when its not under maintenance (and we have seen maintenance breaks cannot be freely scheduled), not under SCRAM, and when it produces, it produces full blast, or driving it at lower power is economical disaster because building/maintenance/personnel costs dominate over fuel costs.Therefore, living in a country with relatively lot of nuclear we constantly see this pattern of nuclear plants force-feeding into grid with zero price while wind/PV plants have to limit their production. Does this make sense to you?Nuclear and renewables share a lot in common, both require either supportive production from other production means with good dynamics (hydropower, fossil fuels), or large-scale storage systems. This was well understood in the golden age of building new nuclear (i.e. in 1970's - 1980's), such that supportive fossil plants were built at the same time in correct proportion, even pumped hydro storage.Now renewables have the same problems and same solutions to them. Putting two troublemakers together is not the solution, however.Therefore, do what China does: use only a little bit of nuclear.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:54:59 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 05:59:49 amThe figure is not made up — it comes from an official government report that was previously published on a state website and widely discussed in official media. I already shared the link in an earlier discussion. The original site is currently offline due to the war, but the data remain accessible via the web archive.To be precise:- The official production cost of nuclear electricity was 0.57 UAH/kWh.- At the current exchange rate (41.5 UAH/USD), that equals 0.01373494 USD/kWh (≈1.37 cents/kWh).In addition, for many years the government required nuclear plants to sell part of their output at an even lower regulated price of 0.10 UAH/kWh, which at the same exchange rate equals 0.00241 USD/kWh (≈0.24 cents/kWh). Plants accepted this because it allows them to sell more electricity at 1.37 cents/kWh, otherwise, electricity would have been purchased instead from “green” producers at 0.20 USD/kWh or more, under mandatory feed-in tariffs.This created a distorted market situation:- Nuclear provides the majority of electricity (as I remember > 60%) at the lowest actual cost.- Yet most of the money flows to subsidized solar and wind producers, who generate less than 10% of total output but are guaranteed priority purchase at ~20× higher rates.- By law, all purchases and sales must go through a state monopoly company, which is obliged to buy “green” energy in unlimited volumes at these preferential prices — commitments locked in until roughly 2030.So the discrepancy is not about the real cost of nuclear energy, but about policy-driven subsidies and corruption-linked contracts that shifted most of the financial flows away from the cheapest and most reliable source.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:24:07 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 06:54:59 amSo still no credible source? just some extremely misleading numbers which you can't even be bothered to share the location of so that others can see how it fails to account for the actual costs.Last week I drove 600km in my car and didn't spend any money on fuel or maintenance, OMG ZERO COST TRANSPORT!!@@$!!! Unless people can see the working you're as good as picking random numbers out of thin air.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:24:47 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on September 28, 2025, 06:34:26 amYou are partly right: nuclear and wind/PV indeed integrate poorly — but not for the reasons you mentioned.Nuclear plants do not suffer from frequent outages. Scheduled refueling and maintenance are predictable and usually planned years in advance. SCRAM events are extremely rare. In practice, nuclear units can routinely run at max power often above 90% time, which is unmatched by any other large-scale source.Running at constant high output is not a weakness of nuclear, it’s actually an advantage. Nuclear plants are most efficient and most stable when operating at full (or near full) power 24/7. Technically, they can adjust load — in an hour they can ramp down or up significantly — but this comes at the cost of significantly reduced efficiency, higher stress on the core, and the risk of xenon poisoning after rapid power reductions. In other words, frequent cycling is technically possible but operationally undesirable.The real issue is that wind and solar are highly variable and unpredictable. Nuclear cannot (and should not) constantly follow these fluctuations. At the same time, grid demand is not constant: baseload is steady, but daytime peaks and nighttime valleys create imbalance. Nuclear can cover the steady part of the load, while the flexible share must be handled by hydro, gas turbines, or storage. Adding intermittent renewables on top of this complicates the balancing problem even further.Ideally, large interconnected grids across multiple time zones could help balance both nuclear and renewables by transferring excess generation from one region to another. Technically it’s feasible, but politically it’s almost impossible today. Such interconnections would solve the problem of daily fluctuations without the need for costly storage systems or other extravagant solutions.So yes, nuclear and intermittent renewables do not complement each other well — but not because nuclear is “uncontrollable”. It’s because nuclear is best as a constant baseload source, while renewables add volatility that existing grids struggle to absorb.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:46:19 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 07:24:07 amWhy you decided that official government report is not credible source?The figure of 0.57 UAH/kWh (≈0.0137 USD/kWh) is not “random” — it comes from a complicated calculations in official state report and represents the full production cost including profit margin. This is the level at which nuclear plants can sustainably and profitably sell electricity.The 0.10 UAH/kWh (≈0.0024 USD/kWh) figure is different: that was a politically mandated price, well below cost, at which plants were forced to sell part of their output. They accepted this because it gave them the right to sell larger volumes at the normal 0.57 UAH/kWh rate — otherwise the market operator would have purchased the same electricity from “green” producers at ~20× higher tariffs.This situation has been publicly discussed by journalists on TV and media, but no resolution has been found, as it is supported by legislation that effectively entrenches this market imbalance.These were the conditions before 2022, prior to the war. Current figures may have changed, but most likely not dramatically.As for the renewable contracts: yes, the feed-in tariff obligations for solar and wind remain in force until roughly 2030, guaranteeing priority purchase of any volume at about 20x the cost of nuclear generation. That is the structural distortion in the system — not the underlying economics of nuclear power.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:54:27 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 07:46:19 amStill no link or copy for people to observe the figures. But keep up the propaganda repeating instead of addressing the reasonable questions about your unbelievable claims.If it were true, why are the IAEA or other pro nuclear organisations not using it to promote the low cost of Nuclear power?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:29:36 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 07:54:27 amI have already provided the link in a previous discussion on this forum. It was excel file with calculations report. The original site of the Ministry has been offline since the start of the war, but the document is still available in the web archive. I don’t have the link at hand right now, and I’m not going to dig it up again — you can find it yourself if you wish.Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 07:54:27 amI have no idea — you should ask them directly.But as far as I know, the IAEA mandate focuses on nuclear safety and security, not on the economic aspects or cost competitiveness of nuclear power.Frankly, I do not see why some organization would voluntarily make electricity cheaper for consumers. Your question sounds rather utopian — it is comparable to asking why wars are not simply ended, or why no one ensures that all hungry children are fed.Let me pose another example: why is gasoline so expensive, with taxes accounting for around 70% of its price, and why is there no apparent willingness to reduce its cost?If you are a mature and reasonable person, you should already understand the reasons behind this.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:36:11 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 07:24:47 amRefueling/scheduled maintenance is indeedpredictable, but I was commenting that it isuncontrollable, which it another thing. Knowing that we don't have power in a year when we need it is better than not knowing, but still a problem, which requires alternative energy sources (e.g. classically fossils).We have the same circus every year, with our nukes going down for maintenance round in early spring, and everyone hoping that the spring will be warm - sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The explanation I have heard why they cannot be maintained in summer is that both personnel and equipment to do refueling and maintenance is expensive and rotated between Nordic NPPs.QuoteA few every year; for a large plant sudden loss of 1600MW does hurt the power system. Then what follows is potentially 2 weeks of fault investigation then 2-4 weeks waiting for some new part. This is the reality we live with.QuoteAnd that 10% is uncontrollable, and significant given the nature of large units so impact of losing just one is serious.QuoteIt's a serious weakness when that power is not needed, which is quite often.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:39:08 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 27, 2025, 11:46:12 pmUnless you're French? I see figures ranging from 65 to 70% of their base load currently being met by (state owned) nuclear. Plenty of energy to export to neighbors too. And, whilst being respectful, France is hardly viewed as 'massively wealthy', certainly as compared to the US.I'd be the first to agree that nuclear power isn't 'cheap'. Certainly not the 'too cheap to meter' kind of cheap we in the UK we told in the 70's. But seriously, nothing is more expensive than procrastination. If other countries had had the same vision as the French, and made the same commitments, we'd be living in a very different world right now.(not 'picking' on you Analog Kid, btw. You were just first to raise the point, and most succinctly)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:42:34 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on September 28, 2025, 08:39:08 amIf, if and if. We know very well from real experience that for a given grid, maybe 20-30% nuclear is optimal. France only gets away with it because it's not really an isolated grid. Physical reality does not care about national borders. Electric system design does not know about national borders, only actual grid connections matter. And France's neighbors did not build that much nuclear, for very good reasons - because France already provides that.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:51:26 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on September 28, 2025, 08:36:11 amI suspect that in your case this pattern is intentional. Here we do not face such a “circus” with maintenance schedules — even now, during the war, preventive and refueling outages are managed without creating recurring seasonal shortages. Of course, there are occasional outages, but during wartime these are caused by shelling or other external threats, not by reactor maintenance. Overlaps where an unexpected shortfall in generation coincides with scheduled maintenance are rare and remain the exception rather than the rule.For example, there are cases when the government needs more money and want to justify an increase in electricity prices: suddenly a series of “unexpected accidents” appears, and sponsored media or online commentators start repeating the message that our electricity is “too cheap.” Such situations do happen — but once the tariff is raised, all those problems seem to vanish overnight, and everything suddenly works smoothly again. This is how it works.Quote from: Siwastaja on September 28, 2025, 08:36:11 amThat is not really a weakness of nuclear power itself — it is an economic and governance issue. The problem lies in how the energy system is managed, how demand is balanced, and how market incentives are structured, not in the inherent characteristics of nuclear generation.Nuclear generation provides a stable and predictable 24/7 power supply — and that, fundamentally, is exactly what you want from a reliable energy source.PS: My father worked for a company that supplied equipment to nuclear power plants, and he visited them frequently, sharing many interesting stories. One that stuck with me was when he arrived at a plant and found some elderly women protesting at the entrance, demanding the plant be shut down. When asked, "How will you watch TV if the plant is closed and there’s no power?" (in our language "no power" sounds exactly the same as "no light"), one of them replied "I can watch TV by candlelight, it’s the plant that’s dangerous".Now, whenever I hear someone loudly claiming that nuclear plants are dangerous, too expensive, or should be immediately shut down, that story invariably comes to mind.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 09:01:01 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on September 28, 2025, 08:36:11 amI suspect that's more a failure to give proper consideration as to what might be usefully done with excess capacity. It's likely not the same situation for every country but here in the UK at least, shunting load to desalination plants in order to bolster the national water supply doesn't feel like it would be foolish in light of the shortages which are being forecast. Perhaps some hydrogen production capacity too, as is planned for the Sizewell C plant?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 09:28:15 am
content: I'm not anti-nuclear, am looking forward to hopefully fusion some day.but I reckon solar/wind/geo/hydro plants combined with massive energy storage systems, and with solar on all roofs (where feasible), is probably a better approach than building brand new nuclear plants everywhere.Hey, put that pitch fork down. Yes you.Yes, I agree, there are locations where you cant get enough solar/wind/geo/hydro to satisfy demand and in those places nuclear is a far better option than burning coal/gas.But the USA is definitely not short on land, so next generation solar + battery storage seems like a better option.By the time any new nuclear plant is fully designed built and operation new solar panels up to ~30% will exist and battery storage will be way better/cheaper due to development for electric cars. Even without generating more power from solar, just adding huge battery storage systems would much reduce the peak load and effectively be the same as building new power stations.I will say though, one big advantage of having a huge amount of cheap energy (which nuclear or fusion can provide) would be cheap aluminum.The more plastic packaging we can replace with aluminum the better, and that can only happen if we can get energy costs really low.Making aluminum is easy, it just takes a lot of power.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 09:33:32 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 08:29:36 amSo a bunch of time wasting later....Quote from: radiolistener on May 06, 2025, 02:45:24 amUnless I'm missing something (possible since the spreadsheet has lots of scripting which may not be working correctly) all that spreadsheet shows is 566.70 UAH/MWh was the price used in 2020 for modelling the grid costing of energy. No sources to show how that was arrived at or if that is actually profitable.Why is it so hard for you to show the working? where are the numbers to support that price as the actual cost of energy that could be replicated long term and/or elsewhere (which is what you keep claiming).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 09:53:36 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 09:33:32 amYou are probably correct — the price may indeed actually 566.70 UAH/MWh for 2020, which is equivalent to 0.5667 UAH/kWh = 0.013655422 USD/kWh. I just rounded it in memory to 0.57 UAH/kWh, but the difference is negligible.Regarding the question of whether this is “profitable”, I believe this confusion is due to cultural differences in terminology may play a role. In our context, the stated figure represents the full production cost, which includes all economic expenses plus a planned profit. This reflects the legacy of a planned economy, where profit was always incorporated into the production cost.Nuclear plants in our country are state-owned and still operate under these economic models, where the “cost” includes everything, include planned profit. In many other countries, the concept of production cost may not exist in the same sense, or it may not necessarily include profit, which probably explains your confusion.From my perspective, this is quite obvious, as we have lived and worked within that system. For someone coming from a purely market-based economy, it may really sound somewhat unusual. I apologize for not clarifying this nuance earlier — it should have been explained.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 10:13:09 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 04:57:38 amNoting first that the subject has been changed from efficient energy production to tariffs and notions of independence.Australia created some of the solar technology now manufactured in China for the world, and continues to be at the forefront of solar cell research. However our current production is pretty negligible, and relies on imported cells. The current government has proposed and is supplying funding to build a core production industry here. The funding is targetted to the purpose, and we remain a trading nation for mutual benefit.@Someone has already provided the reference to refute your latter point about coal plant closures.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 10:16:12 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 09:53:36 amOkay, if that is the case there where is the supporting documentation and numbers to support that 566.70 (or 0.57 or whatever) figure being an actual costing. The document you linked doesnt seem to have any of that.This has been asked of you over and over. Support that figure with a credible source. We have a spreadsheet showing it as a "price" but you claim it is a complete cost including all sorts of contributions. So show us the contributions and how they add up.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 10:56:28 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 09:53:36 amWith all due respect, I strongly suspect that your government is not being entirely truthful here. I doubt they are properly accounting for the amortized costs of responding to the Chernobyl disaster and cleaning up the fallout, the indirect economic losses from removing vast contaminated territories from use for decades, the healthcare costs associated with populations exposed to the radiation in your and neighboring countries, or the capital costs of constructing the sarcophagus over the damaged reactor, including the substantial subsidies provided by foreign nations.I am also highly skeptical about how the amortization of construction costs was converted from the gimmick currency of the “Soviet ruble” into Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), and how those costs were adjusted for catastrophic inflation over the decades. Even if your government did correctly account for all of those amortizations, which I highly doubt, you would still be looking at the capital cost of a poorly designed, cheaply built RBMK reactor that no country in its right mind would construct today.That being said, I am a 100% supporter of nuclear energy as the only viable option for meeting massive baseload energy demand.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:07:05 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 10:16:12 amOnce again, the term “production cost” (as used in the document) is a key element of our economic model. It specifically refers to all expenses of production plus the planned profit of the producer — in our system, this term is strictly defined and cannot be interpreted otherwise. It does not include VAT or the margins of resellers, it only includes the producer’s revenue and all of their operational costs, including materials, labor, equipment depreciation, and other overheads.If you are looking for a detailed line-by-line calculation, I’m afraid that information is considered classified or, at minimum, confidential, and it is not publicly available. The document you have seen was officially published by government authorities, which constitutes legal declassification of this particular figure. Moreover, this figure has attracted public attention, been reviewed by parliamentarians and politicians and by journalists, and has been confirmed.I’m afraid that the figure given in that official document is essentially the maximum level of detail you can access in the public domain, especially given the current wartime conditions.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:18:08 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 11:07:05 amThen just admit that from the start. It's a an accounting figure in an opaque system not a real world cost that can be applied in other situations. Completely unbelievable even for life extension costing when the lowest ever credible costing for life extension is more than twice as much and typical/average costs are around 4-5x.https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculatorYou can't keep repeating it as some realistic or even believeable cost, because there is no evidence that is what it is. Your only source lists it as a price in the model.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:24:40 am
content: Quote from: vad on September 28, 2025, 10:56:28 amIf you read through what is public, life extensions were spending x00 million USD on safety improvements per reactor. So some money was allocated to that. But operating below the cost of the fuel as some sort of shining example? lol lol lol lol.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:52:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 11:24:40 amMy brother served in the military and was mobilized to help secure the contaminated territories around the Chernobyl power plant. He suffered mild radiation poisoning, was placed on disability, and had to deal with health issues for the rest of his life. I do not know how the impact on his health, or on the health of his fellow servicemen, is accounted for in this figure. If something like that happened here, the disabilities of many thousands of servicemen would cost the VA billions of dollars each year alone.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:59:38 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 11:24:40 amIf I remember correctly, the RBMK has an inherent design flaw, a positive void coefficient, that cannot be solved directly without throwing the entire design out the window and going back to the drawing board.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 12:05:09 pm
content: Quote from: vad on September 28, 2025, 10:56:28 amTo be precise, nuclear power plants are not extensions of the government. While the state may be the owner, these plants operate as independent organizations with their own strict management, safety protocols, and accountability, which does not mean that the same things or issues present in government operations apply there. From what I know, the staff are highly educated professionals, and even minor infractions that could affect safety or system functionality are punished very seriously. Compliance and discipline in this sector are extremely strict.Regarding Chernobyl and related concerns, your own country has faced similar nuclear incidents, even if they are not commonly publicized. And I am not talking about the use of nuclear weapons on cities with civilian populations. The fact that you have not heard of them does not imply that other countries have disorderly nuclear practices. Numerous nuclear incidents have occurred globally — far more than just Chernobyl or Fukushima — but the latter received international attention and are often highlighted in media and propaganda. This does not diminish the scale of those disasters, but it puts them into a broader context.The RBMK design indeed had serious flaws, however, in the US and other countries there have been reactors with design or operational issues. After all, since those historical events, safety standards worldwide have significantly increased, reactor designs have been improved, and modern safety systems are far more robust.Finally, regarding concerns about nuclear waste, it is important to recognize that coal burning actually releases significantly more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than any single nuclear power plant — or even all nuclear plants combined. Coal naturally contains trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and their decay products, which are emitted in fly ash and stack gases. You cannot even begin to imagine the amount of radioactive isotopes released during coal burning, even if you try to picture it, the true scale is difficult to fully comprehend.These emissions contribute to background radiation exposure and are amajor factor in lung cancer and other health issuesin populations. In contrast, nuclear power plants, even considering spent fuel storage, expose the public to far lower levels of radioactive materials. When assessing actual public exposure, nuclear energy is therefore much safer than it is commonly portrayed, and modern reactor designs further minimize potential releases.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 12:42:14 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 12:05:09 pmWhat I am saying is that you cannot cherry-pick which costs to include in the cost of electricity generation and which ones to dismiss.You said the government owns the power plants, which includes the infamous Chernobyl plant. Does the 0.57 UAH/kWh figure include the costs associated with Chernobyl, including the amortization of all capital costs going back to 1970, when its first unit was built? Does it include the amortization of the enormous direct and indirect costs that your country (Ukraine today, and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic before 1991) incurred in relation to the Chernobyl disaster? This is a simple accounting question.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 28, 2025, 04:37:53 amOh, come on let's be honest here instead of slinging the greenie political agenda B.S." unreliability" - In all my life I've never heard of a coal fired plant failing. The only ones that I know that have been shut down have been shut down for purely political reasons and not because of reliability."so capitalism will drive expansion of renewables with firming." Wrong again. Capitalism isn't pushing for renewables and never has. The Return on Investment takes too long, IF EVER! The push is coming from government mandates that are outright outlawing coal and gas plants and from massive government subsidies for "renewables". Several people on this very forum have solar and other renewable power energy sources but have ANY of them put one in at 100% of their own expense and not had any kind of subsidy that didn't came directly or indirectly from a government source? I'm not talking about one foot square solar charger for your car battery but a real solar or wind driven source that provides a significant proportion of their total energy needs." no-one has the slightest intention of building a new coal-fired plan" Well that's nonsense, the Chinese are building a couple of dozen of them as we speak. I think that India and some of the other countries that aren't being constantly scrutinized by the news media are also building new coal fired plants,For me personally, I would LOVE to see most of this country's energy come from renewable but the capability to do that simply isn't there yet! The equipment is still too expensive to compete economically, the reliably isn't there, and there are still basic engineering problems that have to be solved such as what do you do for power at night or during prolonged periods of darkness. AND both solar and wind systems are proving to cause their own set of unique environmental damage and disposal problems. Germany for example is litered with the remains of old wind generators and massive winds towers that were taken out of service after only a FEW years because they proven to be unreliable and unproductive.Only about two months go I looked into installing a solar electric system for the fourth time. But the more that I looked, the more problems that I found with what they were offering. The price eventually four to four times what I'm currently paying for power and the system would only provide (at the most!) 40% of my power needs. And that was a grid tied system so it wouldn't provide any stand alone power (the micro inverters wouldn't work when the grid wasn't connected and operating).One of my neighbors is dealing with some of this right now. He has a very large solar system including two battery banks that is supposed to supply 100% of his needs including power for his electric car. He paid a LOT of money for this system. So much that he won't tell me what the total cost was but I have a good idea of what some parts of it costs. But now eight of his eighteen micro-inverters have failed so he's not getting any power for 8/18 (you do the math!) of his system. His system is only about three years old and is supposed to be fully warranted but those model micro inverters have been discontinued and there are none available. His only option is to replace them with a different model. However the new models are software incompatible with the other remaining old model inverters! So his only options is to replace ALL of the inverters with new ones but the installer, solar retailer and the equipment manufacture are all refusing to play for that. I think that he said that his first inverter failed about eight months after the system was installed and now he's had the system for just under three years and the inverters are continuing to fail. That last one failed about a month ago.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 01:45:57 pm
content: There's a lot of discussion about how nuclear power doesn't make economic sense.Many people, companies, and countries disagree. 70 reactors are under construction with 110 moreplanned per this articleIn my opinion, it's a key technology with the fewest issues at scale. It is the same area of research and technology that I hope to see fusion reactors.The technologies will be utilized in human spaceflight and exploration.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 02:31:15 pm
content: Nuclear plants are the cheapest way by far of producing electricity on a large scale. Accidents are exceedingly rare overall. We've made far more damage to the environment with oil.Sure, nuclear waste is a problem. It's interesting to notice though that nuclear waste from all nuclear weapons worldwide doesn't seem to bother people as much. If it allows to nuke your neighbors, then I guess it's alright?IMHO, either we ban the use of nuclear energy completely worldwide (including nuclear weapons), or we make good and reasoned use of it. I personally prefer using it mostly for providing energy to people than for nuking them. YMMV.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 02:44:42 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on September 27, 2025, 09:28:33 pmAnd probably a new one in the next yearsA new study came out recently on a proposed dam. I honestly had no strong opinions before, the basin can really be beneficial if we have a new dourght season like in the past couple of years. Also yet another electric dam.i talked with some of the remaining people living in the valley and the elder hadn't really strong opinions either. (youth, people of my age and even younger, are leaning more towards no. After all it is one of the last remaining rivers in all italy without dams or other human intervertion of sorts)This new study would demonstrate the fragility of the surroundings, much like in vajont. The expected tidal wave would arrive to another lake some 30km from here in about five minutes, break through that dam and then to my city, a whole 15 minutes from the event.Since then, i'm opposed to the project.Quote from: Analog Kid on September 27, 2025, 08:04:50 pmlollollolPlease update your references. They don't build plants designed to fail cacastrophically anymore, and i really doubt an event like fukushima will happen in the USI dream of a nuclear plant in marghera (venice) where the chemical plants used to be. There were safety plans that non many people knew about. If one of those event happened you would have dreamed of chernobyl instead. Point being, don't believe anti-nuclear propaganda (fueled by oil industry, by the way)

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 02:54:12 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on September 28, 2025, 02:31:15 pmA nuclear industry capable of delivering multiple reactors a year can deliver cheap electricity. Getting there is expensive and was usually subsidised by government for access to lots of plutonium. Everything was restarted from scratch now, SMR is supposed to make it less costly to bootstrap, but it remains to be seen if they can.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 03:46:16 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 27, 2025, 11:20:19 pmThis is nonsense and excuse making for an incompetent industry. The Vogtle expansion in Georgia and the failed Summer expansion in South Carolina faced no significant political or legal opposition other than requiring them to address the causes of the Fukushima disaster. Yet they took over 15 years to build and the costs (and loan guarantees) escalated dramatically. The problems were poor project management, bad design that had to be redesigned while the project was already underway, which caused Westinghouse to go bankruptI'm pro nuclear, at least in principle. I think it remains the most promising way to produce carbon free electricity for winter months in the northern US. And I think we should start now since it's going to take more than a decade to build anything. But it's expensive and slow, and it's not because "greens" kill projects, it's because it's expensive and slow, and the industry is bad at their job. Maybe that can be improved with more practice. But pretending there is no internal problem with the nuclear industry is a guaranteed way to more failure.It's also pretty much guaranteed that new nuclear power won't produce a single joule of electricity before 2035. So 100% the priority should be deploying solar power and battery storage which can start operating in a matter of months. A dollar spent today on solar will have much more impact that than any kind nuclear. Again, if we are going to do it we need to start now because it takes so long to build.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:01:25 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on September 28, 2025, 02:54:12 pmFuel isn't the problem, it's cheap and plentiful. Yes, access to nuclear fuel is regulated but that's not what the government subsidies are needed for. The subsidies are for normal construction stuff like steel and concrete.I also don't think it is the case that delivering multiple reactors a year automatically makes it cheap. Nuclear construction has always been expensive, even during major construction booms. That's true in the US, France, Japan, and China. Every country that has had a major nuclear energy boom has had political and practical reasons driving the adoption that were important enough to justify the cost.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:25:32 pm
content: Quote from: Analog KidThink 'Breeder Reactor'. Google AI has a good description. Russia, China and India are the only countries currently using breeder reactors to recycle waste fuel and minimize the amount of new Uranium required for refueling. The US had a design but then President Jimmy Carter (Navy trained nuclear engneer) shut it down. Google AI for 'jimmy carter shuts down breeder reactor project'. His complaint was related to nuclear proliferatiion. Cost overruns didn't help the Clinch River Project. The Senate finally killed it in 1988.Think ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor) where the cooling water is contained in a pool above the reactor. No electricity or pumps required to cool the reactor, gravity always works. There is another ABWR design with the cooling pool in the base of the containment vessel and steam pressure pushes the water into the reactor pressure vessel. One thing is certain, there is plenty of steam to go around,Wiki 'Loss Of Coolant Event' known as a 'LOCA Event'https://www.google.com/search?q=loss+of+coolant+eventThere have been a lot of changes over the years with a lot of thought given to LOCA events.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 04:48:44 pm
content: GE took the approach of designing a reactor as a module and getting it pre-approved by the NRC. This takes years off the design of a new plant. Find a site with water and access to power lines, plunk down a pre-approved reactor and hook it in.Then kill it completely while simultaneously shutting down every other nuclear power plant like Taiwan did with the Lungmen project.Using Google AI compare 'power plant uranium cycle' and 'breeder reactor uranium cycle'

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:16:24 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 28, 2025, 04:25:32 pmIt probably would have been on fire more than operating. Sodium is to nuclear engineers what C is to programmers ... inflammatory I know, much like sodium.The whole small and modular thing seems a bit of an exaggeration for the SMR GE Hitachi is building in Ontario.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 05:24:30 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on September 27, 2025, 09:28:33 pmAnd let's not forget the amount of land that will get flooded due to rising sea levels if the climate gets much warmer.Still, the principle problem with expanding nuclear power is lack of Uranium. There simply isn't enough Uranium available to produce a significant amount of energy when looking at a global scale.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:09:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 28, 2025, 05:24:30 pmI've seen a few thorium designs and it is far more abundant. I see nuclear as superior to coal/gas/carbon-burning solutions. As links and information have been shared in this thread its obvious that its also competitive to what are more commonly called "green" energy.Given the typical green glow that's often associated with radiation, I chuckle at the thought that Nuclear is the OG "green" energy.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:15:35 pm
content: Some comments about the construction problems of nuclear and other power plants, setting aside the real problems of atmospheric pollution and radioactive waste disposal.I highly recommend the recent book B Flyvbjerg and D GardnerHow Big Things Get Done, Currency 2023.They discuss the obvious problems of cost overruns and delays in big projects, including Olympic Games, railways, and power plants.Appendix A on page 192 tabulates the analysis for mean cost overrun, % of projects with huge overruns, and how big were those overruns, for 25 different project types.The three worst cases are "nuclear storage", "Olympic Games", and "nuclear power".The next three are "hydroelectric dams", "IT", and "non-hydroelectric dams".Skipping down, we see "bus rapid transit", "rail", "airports", and "tunnels".The best six are "fossil thermal power", "roads", "pipelines", "wind power", "energy transmission", and "solar power". Energy transmission and solar power are by far the lowest, with solar power having a mean cost overrun of merely 1%.An important conclusion in the book is that "modularity" drives down cost overruns: bolting together a bunch of standard parts (e.g., assembling a solar farm) is far cheaper than an unique design per "one huge thing" (Olympic Games and most nuclear plants).I hope that modular nuclear plants can drive plant construction down in a similar manner to wind and solar power installations.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:19:36 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 06:09:42 pmThorium is decades away. Probably not even worth developing given that the materials to manufacture solar panels are even more abundant. Oxygen and silicon are the two most abundant elements on earth and nearly all materials used to make a solar panel consists of these two elements.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:36:38 pm
content: In most cases nuclear power was a very expensive form of producing electricity. New reactors in the west now seem to be at some 20 cents / kwh, which is way to expensive and even this is usually with extra subsedies for contruction and developement. In the 1960s/70s governments spend a crazy amount on support for the developement costs - way more than what was spend on PV and wind combined.A principle problem with the current U235 based reactors are limited by the uranium reserves: something like 20-40% are already used up. For a large scale use to really make an impact on the climate one would need breader reactors. So far these were expensive failures (with maybe the exception of a Russian one that still needs to be proven). The required reprocessing is dirty, expensive and comes with proliferation risks. The better reprocessing works the more proliferation risks. We need a substitute for coal now - not a new developement that may work in 20 or 40 years and even than need time to scale up (the breeders still need starting fuel). So even if it works, breeders (and also fusion) would come too late (likely not before 2100 at scale).At best nulcear could be a small contribution, for maybe 5% or 10%.The thorium designs got some publicity pushes, but this in largely just propaganda. Thorium breeders were tested / investigated in the 1970s and found to be inferior to Pu breeders. Not much has changed since than - just some crazy, non working plans floating around the web. If it sounds to good to be true, there is a chance that it is actually not true. Look at thorium breeders in comparison the U/Pu breeders: in most aspects the Pu version wins hands down. The chemical reprocessing part with thorium is a way more difficult than with Pu. This alone is a deal breaker for thorium, especially thermal breeders that need even more reprocessing.The waste handling has the principle problem that it needs much of the clean up and quite some costs well in the future (e.g. 20-50 years later to reduce radiation). There is no good way to guarantee that funds set aside today would be sufficient and still available by then under all circumstances. Even a stach of gold, silver or aluminum can loose in value and would not provide interests. The usually calculation assumes quite some interest on the money set aside and this comes with risks for the capital. Without the interest the costs rise quite a bit.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:36:47 pm
content: I agree that nuclear power is not cheap if you account for all costs and risks. If cost were the only factor, solar and wind power generation would also have to be considered unfeasible, yet these generation capacities continue to quadruple despite the costs.I also agree that nuclear power plant construction projects are prone to cost overruns, mostly because they take so long to complete (order of magnitude of 15 years) that by the time a plant is finished, regulations have usually become more stringent, as governments and lawmakers respond to the concerns of a fearful and greenwashed constituents, forcing builders to meet standards that did not exist decades earlier when the reactor was originally designed.Nuclear is the only viable option for meeting baseLOAD energy demand without producing greenhouse gas emissions and without financing adversaries by buying fossil fuel from them.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 06:47:03 pm
content: This report estimates that the cost of nuclear power generation is 10.5-22.9 US cents per kWh.https://www.lazard.com/media/nltb551p/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:03:26 pm
content: Quote from: vad on September 28, 2025, 06:36:47 pmSo who do you think we (the US) buy our uranium from to power those nukes?I'll give you three guesses.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:07:29 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 28, 2025, 06:15:35 pmThere is a principle problem with scaling down nuclear power. Smaller reactor don't work that well, as they loose more neutrons and expose more of the wall to a high neutron flux. The inner part of the core just works better than the outer and small has more of the outer part. So they tend to need higher fuel enrichment and consume more fissile fuel for the same energy.Comparing just the costs for produced kwh can be misleading. PV/wind don't produce 24/7 but need some additional storage. Nuclear production costs are usually calculated for 24/7 production, but the demand at night is usually much lower. So they would need storage to use the power from the nights when needed or reduce the power at night and this way get an extra cost penalty. For both this is less an issue as a moderate fraction to the mix.How well PV / wind work depends a lot on the location - in good places they are very competative and relative dependable and thus not much storage needed. However there are also areas where both wind and PV don't have good conditions.Conventional nuclear is limited by the fuel reserves - so not at all a global option. It can hardly sustain the small current contribution for long.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:11:16 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 28, 2025, 07:03:26 pmI see your point - Canada is our main adversary these days.https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64444

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:11:34 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on September 28, 2025, 07:07:29 pmAccording to a nuclear-industry link someone gave above, total nuclear contribution to global electricity supply is 9%.I was honestly surprised that it was that little.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 07:45:56 pm
content: it kind of makes sense to use the sun during the day and burn stuff at nightStored electrical energy kind of feels weird, its like... being on reserves.And to some degree I am sick of the power management bureaucracy with smart appliances and sequencing and other crap that is required when there is a finite amount at night...The last thing I want to do is have my house be lock step with power company requirements (which will be constantly trying to cut storage costs and making things cheaper with laws, send out snoops, etc).Would be nice if they only ran the reactors at night @ full capacity, to save fuel.The idea that you need to run your washer during peak hours or whatever kinda bugs me. I don't want to fill my house with 'capacitors' just to have freedom of time with what I do. I never liked home energy storage. Small reserve OK, but at this point its like too ghetto.... I will be up at night wondering if some separator film is gonna fuck off inside of a giant array of separator film rolls. The car is OK but I don't want it in my basement lol, and not too sure I trust the local authorities to manage something with that much stored energy properly. They are already bad enough at transmission lines and generators, I don't think you want them near big 'capacitors' lol. They can barely be trusted to tighten a bolt and cut a tree branch, I don't want them managing big batteries. And the word nuclear is scary, so the workers / managers / politicians / etc around that are like held to a high standard. With batteries its going to be played off like its a pack of AA's lolI feel like with a energy storage system, group A will build it too big, and then they will be panned for 'excess' and people will be constantly trying to sell it, scrap it, etc until there is a problem. Group B is going to under estimate the requirements and then try to make it work via 'police work' that will interrupt your way of life and make things feel really strange. Humans seem REALLY BAD at managing reserves. Always profiteering. While there is a long term reserve problem, nuclear does seem like it gets rid of this problem. I figure if you like reserves, try to manage the food supply better. That only has the option of perpetual short term storage logistics. With energy IMO try to avoid the problem as long as possible. The policing can be done to the fancy nuclear generators to keep them safe, and their toxic waste (hopefully) instead of my washerAnd IMO the big benefit of cheap power is.... advanced manufacturing techniques. advanced materials that need alot of heat and also thermal processes. Cheap high grade engineering ceramics, electrochemistry processes (ECM, electroforming) and low temperature stuff that needs big compressors. Metglas materials come to mind too. And heat treatments. Also some advanced high temp recycling stuff. There is a big push toward low temperature ceramics, but I wonder what kind of wonders high temperature ceramics hold (which are not investigated nearly as much because of power cost, probobly). I noticed that the higher temp processes are much easier and less sensitive and require less systems that compensate for lack of heat, and use simpler materials. This could lead to a boom in manufacturing, if the price is low enough. Not saying that high temp processes can't benefit from advanced systems, but the 'base line' for what you get with 'simple work' is way higher, making it practical in that sense. Easier parts to make.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:14:17 pm
content: Quote from: vad on September 28, 2025, 07:11:16 pmThe currently identified typically sourced supply of Uranium would last the world 100 years. 40 if we significantly accelerate usage.If you account for uranium in seawater, it's close to 60k years' supply.I hope that we as a species reach for the stars, and nuclear fission/fusion is likely the big means to power that exploration.Within our solar system solar is a good option but for any interstellar travel that's not viable.When you consider we are basically not even on theKardashev scaletoday, we have a lot of learning about harnessing the power of the atom.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:53:12 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 08:14:17 pmI'm a big fan of nuclear fission. Yuge fan. Have been for years.We already have the universe's greatest fusion reactor out there.Yeah, you know what I'm talking 'bout.Let's use it.And while I'm at it, I have to take a jab at the current obsession with solar energy, by which I mean that the assumption is that solar energy = photovoltaic electricity.Back in the 19-ought-80s I was involved in solar energy projects. But none of them were PV. They were allthermalsolar projects. In other words, direct and indirect use of solar energy to heat--or to cool--structures and dwellings. Things like hot water collectors, Trombe walls, adobe houses.What has happened to that movement? Sure, there still are some folks out there who are doing things like this. But unfortunately the whole field is now almost completely dominated by the idea that the only reasonable way to use the sun's energy is to convert it to electricity. Which as we know is a not-very-efficient conversion. Getting better but still down there.Solar cooling not possible, you say? How about adobe, for one example: a house built with thick earthen walls absorbs insolation during the day, keeping it out of the inside, and at night warms the interior as it cools down. A big ol' thermal flywheel. Or dig your house down in the ground where it's cooler if you live in a hot climate.I once spent the night in a bermed house in Columbia, Missouri in the middle of the winter. There was a wall of windows in the front, and the rest of the house was dug out of a hill. Only a small woodstove for heat. It was nice and toasty inside, with lots of frost on the windows.The next morning when we went out, the Missouri River was frozen bank to bank. I had to stick a space heater under my VW van to get it to start.Solar energy works!

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 08:54:37 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on September 28, 2025, 04:25:32 pmA more expensive, more complex, and less well proven design is not a great way to address the big challenges facing nuclear power. This is a large part of the recent history of nuclear power: getting obsessed with the shiny thing of the day that doesn't really address the actual challenges.Development of fast reactors generally has little to do with the economics or practicality of nuclear power. It's mostly pursued because of the synergy with that nations nuclear weapons programs.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 10:10:53 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmSeems you're projecting and actually your claims are the ones that come from an unsupported extreme position.Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmhttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-16/coal-reliability-report-outages-loy-yang-yallourn-latrobe-valley/105296552and specific recent examples:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-04/callide-power-station-fined/104895370https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-09/yallourn-power-station-outage-air-duct-collapse/105394406Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmBecause other energy production methods currently/never received any subsidies or support? Like being built by the government and then sold off cheap? Cost analysis of new build generation consistently finds renewables (with or without storage) to be the cheapest way to deliver energy, given a free energy market (which most places do not have, including the US) why would rational economic actors install energy sources that cost more to produce the same amount?vad linked to Lazard, a more recent analysis is also available:https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdfQuote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmYou don't say which country you are from.....But oh look, Australia already produces the majority of its electricity from renewable sources:https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w&view=discrete-time&group=Renewables%2FFossilsThe last two months have renewables > 50% of total production. This is easily replicated in most countries, while simultaneously offering cheaper energy!Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmSo you are unable to make a small residential system profit given your supply chain (not mentioning the specific tariffs you are on is suspicious, you may well be buying energy well below the open market rate), despite the fact that others seem to be able to. That is also a world removed from grid scale renewables which do profit.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 10:31:47 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on September 28, 2025, 01:28:03 pmStray Electron, did it occur to you that I spoke about my own country. Every word of mine is correct and your assertions in relation to my country are simply false.Coal generators have repeated outages, equipment failure, requiring days to months for maintenance and repair. If it were otherwise, their effective capacity would be greater than the 60% it is.Renewables are cheaper. No energy company here, profitable public companies whose shares you can purchase, is asking to build any new coal (or nuclear) plant. In fact at least one is getting a government subsidyto keep a coal plant running longer than would be economically sensible for the company.The shutdown program is company driven for economic reasons. Renewables are cheaper and are being built because their ROI is just fine thank you.If you want to talk about other countries, look up China's planned generation capacity for renewables vs their small planned coal plants and nuclear mix. It may enlighten you.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:18:18 pm
content: There's a lot of push for expensive future construction projects, like power stations, because- The amount of money to be made in large construction projects is huge, they always go overbudget so can be a cash cow of sorts. This would especially be true for nuclear due to complexity, risks, safety factors and simply due to building some new reactor type that hasn't been done nationally before.- If it cost a lot to build a power station you have to charge a lot for the power to recover your build costs.Make no mistake, the push for new nuclear power stations is mostly about making profit, not about getting cheap power to the people.And even if i'm wrong and the goal is actually cheap power that wont happen until the power station construction costs are paid off which will take 10's of years. Think of where solar/batteries will be in 10 years.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:20:32 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 28, 2025, 08:53:12 pmIt's still there. Thermal management is still a really imprortant part of building design. t's just that outside of a handful of cases, it's not great for industrial uses of heat, and not at all applicable to transportation, illumination, powering eletroncs and communication, and the myriad of other things we use electricity for.The other thing that happened of course is that natural gas got cheap. Applications like drying of agricultural products that could be done by solar are at least assisted by natural gas heat.Quote

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:32:41 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 28, 2025, 10:31:47 pmWhat do you suppose China is doing with those nuclear reactors? China produces enough PV and Wind generation to avoid building any other types.China is number one in building Coal, Nuclear, Wind, and Hydro power. Only second to the US in Natural Gas generation.China does not even plan to be carbon neutral till 2060. Most of the folks on this forum will be dead.Good on Australia for buying green energy generation from China. Hopefully you don't tick em off. I'm sure the US or another country will sell you some stuff if they do.I'm sure its just not economically viable to build nuclear. That's why 70 are being built world wide and hundreds are planned.Australia seems to only have academic interest in fission or fusion with no planned significant deployments even academically.China just built 95 gigawatts of coal generation.Their energy mix isEDIT:This post appears to be a mistake on my part. I was in flight and was writing some of my thoughts and notes while reading research and considering other posts. I wasn't intending to quote Kite31 and it wasn't my intent for these thoughts to be directed towards that poster. I only noticed it when Kite31 responded to it. Consider it a peek at my notebook. I was using the post window to write notes and that's a lesson learned.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:33:39 pm
content: When I was in grad school, and we all got environmentally conscious, there was a lot of interest in solar to thermal systems, since so much of the total energy consumption is in space and water heating.An interesting possibility was non-focusing light concentration, and professors at my university were adapting geometries that had been developed for physics experiments with Cherenkov light and PM tubes to the more mundane application of heating water.Seehttps://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5063714for an early paper. It was also pointed out that the horseshoe crab (limulus) has analogous lenses for light concentration. See (abstract):https://www.nature.com/articles/280396a0Photovoltaic devices were far less efficient then (ca. 1980): to use them in a space heating system now, one should power an appropriate heat pump, rather than waste the "high quality" electrical energy in resistors.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 28, 2025, 11:35:21 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on September 28, 2025, 11:18:18 pmI agree. There's economic drivers thought this thread is full of "It's not economical" to build nuclear. Weird right?Corporations are greedy monsters, governments are greedy for "power" and being dominate in energy across the board is "power".

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 01:15:35 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 11:32:41 pmDiversity and demand. Both their total population and population density are about fifty times Australia's.By the way, where have I ever declared that no-one should build nuclear power plants? I have argued consistently that they are simply uneconomic and essentially irrelevant here. Other countries can make their own decisions, although they need to weigh the same problems in their contexts.Think back to my early post(s) in this thread. I was very clear that there are many things to consider, not X is good, Y is bad. I seem to be getting from you some fairly knee-jerk pro-nuclear reactions which do not suggest that you have taken time to consider my comments. Look at the next two you make:QuoteAnd? For what is that supposed to argue? My ancestors are dead. Should they have curled up under a blanket rather than trying to do sensible things? Should the existence of totalitarians meant they should give up because such people existed?QuoteI previously corrected you on this rather childish response.QuoteCorrect, as explained and easily confirmed in this country.QuoteI do not control the behaviours of other countries. Doubtless it also explains why vastly more renewable energy is being built?QuoteYes. That makes sense.QuoteYes, that is under construction as of 2024. They also installed 373 GW of renewable generation. You may wish also to examine their advertised plans. It's a big country.Were you not saying in these pages that coal was bad so should be replaced, in your case arguing by nuclear? You should be pleased that China now appears to have passed its emissions peak and with further renewables installation will render further coal stations otiose.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 01:44:57 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 11:32:41 pmYou missed the whole point. China is increasing its share of renewable power, a trend which has been steadily continuing:https://www.iea.org/countries/china/energy-mixAnd as kite31 says, China plans to continue with that. They might be adding new Coal, but they're adding it slower than renewables. Just because China is the worlds largest economy they can end up building/having the most of all sorts of things such as Coal power. But that is misleading in the extreme to compare absolutes, particularly when kite31 politely suggested you look at the relative amounts.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 03:46:01 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 29, 2025, 01:15:35 amI have modified the post you quoted. The post was from me taking notes using the post window. I accidentally posted it as a reply to your post. I'm perfectly fine with any issues taken with these notes being addressed as is, as you have done. But it wasn't my intent.I hope China continues to aggressively eliminate coal and natural gas. But its up to them. I can't imaging what impact their PV installations will have on things. The Three Gorges Dam actually changed the earth's rotation.My statement about Australia's current single source of critical wind and solar components remains true. It doesn't impact me and at least its heading in a better direction whenever those facilities come online. It's only PV fabs being built though I believe, nothing of the wind infrastructure and many other components required for PV. I believe you may also one day build your own batteries.I see our friends in the EU suffer due to single sourcing energy from Russia and while its not 1:1 it might have similar impacts if there's a upheaval in trade such as the pandemic or relations between the countries. Again, not my problem. But I do hope for the best for all of the nations.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 03:51:05 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 29, 2025, 01:44:57 amI've edited the post your are referencing. I explained in my edit and to Kite31 my mistake in note taking.When did China become "the worlds largest economy"?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 04:22:04 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 29, 2025, 01:15:35 amWhen I hear nuclear power described as “uneconomic”, it is hard not to smile. If we set aside the political slogans and the rather aggressive marketing of so-called “green energy”, the technical and economic reality is clear: nuclear energy remains the cheapest and most reliable option for large-scale, stable generation.Yes, the initial construction costs are high — nobody denies that. But those are capital investments that pay off over decades. Once a plant is online, fuel costs are minimal, operating expenses are predictable, and the output is steady regardless of weather or time of day. That is something no wind or solar installation can provide.If one looks honestly at the full system cost — including balancing, grid stabilization, and environmental externalities — nuclear is not only competitive, it has no real alternative for providing continuous gigawatt-scale baseload power. That is why countries that are serious about energy security and industrial development continue to expand or extend their nuclear fleets.To dismiss it as irrelevant or unprofitable is not an argument based on economics or engineering, but on ideology.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 04:52:53 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 11:32:41 pmUnderstood.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 05:10:37 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 04:22:04 amYou are conveying your lack of knowledge of investment finance. What if they do not pay off? Then no investment will be made.Here, they simply do not. All of these aspects were covered in the AEMO/CSIRO report which has already been linked here, and is operationally verified by behaviour of the relevant commercial interests in production of energy.Quote1. How many GW do you think are needed?2. "Baseload" is the minimum continuous energy demand, not what inflexible fossil/uranium generators happen to be producing before they are superseded. For maximum efficiency, fossil/uranium generators should not need to be turned up or down, so they must operate at the minimum demand level, assuming some other storage technolocy is unable to provide that. Currently around the world, that is 9%. I would not be surprised if it rose as high as 15% but it might not.There is no special merit in running a particular type of generation simply because you can.QuoteBegs the question. Define "serious" without being self-serving.QuoteWell, it is based precisely on economics and engineering, for which references rather than internet opinions have been provided, with no countering data, so where is the ideology other than yours?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 05:48:31 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 04:22:04 amWell then where is your evidence? I find numerous reliable and neutral sources that claim the opposite.Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 10:10:53 pmQuote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 11:18:08 amand in a post in this thread I just accidentally deleted:https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/2025/AEO2025-narrative.pdfOne of those quoted directly to you. So with zero supporting evidence you come back and still claim the same refuted point. Perhaps you cannot find anything to support your wild delusions?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 05:50:59 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 29, 2025, 03:51:05 amConsider the US likes to over value its own worth, GDP counts all sorts of money sloshing and imaginary "product".

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 07:24:02 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 29, 2025, 05:50:59 amI asked you politely. I guess that doesn't count. Lovely US bashing so I guess I'm just a member of those horrible people.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 08:17:35 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 29, 2025, 07:24:02 amWell if you brought any actual figures and references then it might be different.China total electricity production 2024: 9,418 TWh (https://data.stats.gov.cn/english/tablequery.htm?code=AA0701)US total electricity production in 2024: 4,318 TWh (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=19&f=A&s=0&maptype=0&ctype=linechart)They passed you in 2010 (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?tab=line&country=CHN~USA)So which economy is larger? I'd take hints on what generation to use from the larger player, who is also installing more capacity than the US and will continue to increase the gap.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 12:09:30 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on September 29, 2025, 08:17:35 amYou can't compare like that just like you can't invent your own economic rules. China does mostly (energy intensive) manufacturing but least of the profit on a product is made from manufacturing. Most money is made between the factory and a product ending up in de hands of the end user AND product development is typically not done in China either. This is why the US is still the biggest economy:https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 12:21:23 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 04:22:04 amExactly, existing Nuclear plants produce power at the cost of 1-2 cents per KWh.When we build one it's investing into the future.There is no silver bullet. We cannot "just build more solar" our way out of this. Nuclear, solar, wind, and power to gas all has to play together nicely to resolve this puzzle. All these are low or no, or even negative emission, which makes the polar bears happy.Instead of the stupid green policies, that don't resolve the issue.And whoever brought up Chornobyl nuclear plant, only proved that it was a mistake to let the soviets have this technology. Monkey with the grenade. Notice how every post soviet country except one is doing better, the one which inherited the "brain".

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 12:31:09 pm
content: Extending existing nuclear permits in shortage of production -> extremely economicBuilding new nuclear in varying energy "landscape" -> maybe economicBuilding "too much" new nuclear when there is no shortage of production -> definitely not economicIt's simple as that. I put "too much" in quotation marks because from grid stability / power availability / reliability viewpoint, having infinite amount of infinite different types of energy sources dispatchable is optimum - but it is uneconomic. Economic optimization results in balanced amounts of different production types. That includes some nuclear, but it does not follow that building a lot of "modern" nuclear is key to reliable and cheap electricity, exactly because the price per MWh produced increases when production duty decreases - almost linearly because fixed costs dominate. That is why you want to run nuclear 90% of the time at 100% power. Then it's cheap. Also track record of modern nuclear isn't that great. During the golden age economics really were there. Now it's hit or miss, with exploding budgets and timelines.Simple as that. It is similar to how some potatoes are a good idea for your base personal energy needs, but you don't want to buy 3000kcal worth of potatoes every day, unless you can dump them to your neighbors. And it's not workable if everyone grows so much potatoes.Political agenda / fanboyism easily leads to cherry-picking only parts of the equation (to the direction one represents, that varies). I don't like solar/wind fanboys either, but nuclear fanboys somehow seem the most stupid and irritating type.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 12:43:11 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on September 29, 2025, 12:21:23 pmThink about that. Let's say 2 cents per kWh. That isn't a magically good number at all. For last half a year, electricity market price has been below 2 cents/kWh maybe more than 50% of the time here.Now 2c/kWh isn't colossally bad price either, but think about what happens if you have to reduce duty cycle further. Say, due totoo much solarandtoo much wind. Initial costs with nuclear are huge. Operational costs run even if you turn it to minimum power, or even if you turn it OFF for months of predicted cheap electricity (which isn't easy to do, BTW). What now? It's suddenly 4 c/kWh. Or 5. Which is pretty expensive for large scale production!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 01:23:05 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on September 29, 2025, 12:43:11 pmWhere this reasoning goes wrong is that the price is highest when demand is highest. So the price people actually pay per kWh is not the average price on the spot market. And it also means that if you can supply electricity during those high demand periods, you can earn quite a bit of money. The number to work with is what people areeffectivelypaying per kWh.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 01:29:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2025, 01:23:05 pmThe consideration is that you shut down renewable, and not the nuclear. Short term. And long term, you turn the excess renewable to gas, to be used during winter or transportation or heating. Negative price makes no sense, the only reason we have that is because we didn't invest enough into the chemical industry where this can be used effectively.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 01:35:06 pm
content: The way I see it electricity prices are driven by transport and storage costs and not so much by generation costs in the near future. It wouldn't surprise me that a multi Gigawatt scale solar installation in a desert can produce electricity at far below 1ct (euro/dollar) per kWh. Transport and storage will be the significant costs. Where nuclear has an advantage in this picture is that the generation can be put closer to the load reducing transport costs and having next to no storage costs. Also think about powering critical infrastructure from a reliable, local energy source; nuclear has a clear advantage as well.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 02:01:44 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2025, 01:35:06 pmand really long cableshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Linkhttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/energy/australia-sun-cable-singapore-split-climate-intl-hnk

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 04:04:00 pm
content: There's reason Microsoft is buying into Three Mile Island and Bill Gates has personally put $1B into a new plant in Kemmerer, Wyo.This IA thing is going to require an enormous amount of powerhttps://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5120581/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-microsoft-ai

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 04:59:39 pm
content: When used at a large scale, nuclear power would also need storage. It works best 24/7 while the demand at night and on weekends is usually considerably lower. One could save quite a bit on storage with a mix of PV and nuclear: PV for much of extra need during the day and nuclear for the power needed at night.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 05:57:39 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on September 29, 2025, 04:59:39 pmThose in the industry, or even those who just discussed energy systems before the current era of renewables remember this very well. Proponents of nuclear accepted this very well as a fact of life. In Finland using the lakes as pumped hydro storage was discussed seriously in 1970's-1980's when our fifth reactor was in planning - which realized a few years ago. It was well known to anyone that for X amount of nuclear, Y amount of reserve capacity in fast-reacting fossil plants is needed. Even nuclear "fanboys" of that time had no issue admitting this.Somehow when the renewables started to gain traction, all this knowledge was lost from public discussion. Suddenly only renewables need backup/reserve, and nuclear is "reliable baseline" alone, even alongside renewables.You are probably right that nuclear + solar works as a hybrid because energy need during daytime (on work days) is higher, but then again wind + solar + nuclear does not, because it's more windy during night, so that solar + wind already have quite excellent synergy - except when the weather is not right, which happens. Sometimes at the worst possible time (e.g., coldest two weeks of the year). Burning fossils is still what responds best to such uncontrollable (and largely unpredictable over longer timescales than a few days) variations. Synthetic fuels made from excess PV+wind, even at poor efficiency, also makes some sense; they are easier to store long-term compared to e.g. batteries.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 06:00:45 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 04:22:04 amIt is not. You can't just ignore the construction cost, and if you did, nuclear would still be more expensive than solar and wind.Extending the lifetime of existing power plants is definitely economic. The construction cost has already been paid (sunk cost). But if you look at the Vogtle plant reactors 3&4: they cost 35 billion dollars. If it ran for *free* for 100 years it wouldn't get to an average cost of $.02 / kWhr. Once you factor in the time value of money an the operating costs, the lifetime cost per kWhr is projected to be more like 10x that. Maybe that can be reduced for future plants, except right now nobody is even planning to build more AP1000s, so we are going to to have a new crop of unproven designs with their own learning curves.Including construction costs, nuclear power is more expensive per kWhr than most anything else. It might still be needed. But pretending it's not expensive is just unserious.Consider this: for $25B dollars, you could have built 25 GW of $1/W solar at 20% capacity factor (that's a typical all-in cost for grid scale solar in the US). That would produce an annualized average power of 5 GW, more than twice what the two new nuclear reactors can produce. And that would leave you $10B to spend on storage. Turns out that can by you a crap ton of batteries, more than enough to average out night time and weekly weather variations. And the project would have been done in a fraction of the time and already producing power (and revenue!) for years and displacing fossil fuel production. Costs for solar were a lot higher when the Vogtle expansion was approved nearly 20 years ago, so I'm not actually knocking it: it's not fair to blame people in 2008 for not projecting the cost changes that happened since then. However I 100% blame people in 2025 who are still doing 2008 cost analysis.Nobody would do exactly this, the storage is not economical right now because it's not needed yet. It's more cost effective to install more solar as long as we are largely displacing natural gas production. And it's not a total solution: it seems like it's going to be difficult to produce enough solar during winter in the northern US.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 06:34:11 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on September 29, 2025, 06:00:45 pmIf you take that construction costs at face value."Georgia Power ratepayers will be responsible for a $7.6 billion bill for the construction of two nuclear reactors built during the long-delayed expansion at Plant Vogtle located southeast of Augusta."I have a feeling that having contracts that allow taxpayers to foot the bill, and creative accounting is more responsible to the cost overruns than the technology itself. Like the company goes:- Oh no, it's going to be 3 times more expensive. Too bad, you have to pay for it, and dont have a plan B. Should we switch off electricity, or are you going to pay for it?Monopoly? I don't like board games, I don't know what you are talking about.Here is a million mr politician, stfu and sign the papers.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 06:41:57 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on September 29, 2025, 04:59:39 pmI think someone already mentioned it in the thread. There's great ways to use excess power such as desalination, hydrogen generation, and pumped hydro storage.Grid scale batteries are coming online. I really find the FES stuff intriguing for grid storage. We have two large nuclear plants in my home state and pumped hydro storage. There's a large offshore wind farm too.My lens is more "Save the Humans" than "Save the Planet." I just think we have to stay on top of the greed that can cause significant issues by poisoning the humans through the environment. For instance, in my state we have very large PV arrays on arable land. That land has long been a source of crops and food. But, due to perversions created by green energy incentives it pays more to pave over all that arable land with PV arrays than to grow crops. Some estimate that we've lost 30% of our arable land globally in the last 40 years. Humans can't afford to lose that and be able to feed itself.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 06:50:30 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on September 29, 2025, 06:00:45 pmYou are right that Vogtle 3&4 were extremely expensive, but that reflects mainly the US regulatory and financial environment, not the intrinsic cost of nuclear technology. In China and South Korea, similar units are built at a fraction of the cost and on schedule.If we treat the inflated US construction costs as the ‘true’ cost of nuclear, then of course it looks uneconomic. But in reality, these are artifacts of financial overhead, regulation, and management failures, not of physics or engineering.The key point is that nuclear provides stable, dispatchable power for decades once built — something solar and wind cannot offer without massive backup or storage.So the debate is less about technology and more about whether our financing and regulatory systems are structured to allow nuclear to be built at its real cost, rather than at bubble-inflated prices.I should clarify that when I said nuclear remains the cheapest option, I was not referring to US projects like Vogtle, which are clear outliers. As I mentioned before, in my country, using a standard methodology that includes only reasonable costs and profit margin, the levelized cost of nuclear power comes out to around 0.013 USD/kWh. By contrast, someone above mentioned, that in the US some recent projects are reported at 0.20 USD/kWh, which clearly has little to do with physics or engineering and everything to do with inflated financial structures and regulatory overhead.It’s a bit like comparing housing prices across countries: in one place you can buy a decent house with land for one hundred dollars, in another the same house would cost hundreds of millions. The difference does not mean that bricks, wood, or labor suddenly became that much more expensive — it reflects financial bubbles, land policy, and taxation. Nuclear construction costs show the same pattern: the underlying technology is not inherently expensive, but in some jurisdictions the financial and regulatory overhead makes it look that way.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 07:57:34 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 29, 2025, 06:41:57 pmWellll, if you really want to do that, then the thing to do is to reduce the global population. Takes care of both problems.The current level is unsustainable, given the demands for living standards worldwide (and rightly so).Off-topic, I know, but that's the elephant in the room that nobody's copping to.And if we don't do it, it'll be done one way or the other, by war, famine or the Sixth Great Extinction. Coming to a home planet near you.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 09:12:18 pm
content: interesting articles about nuclear power plantsfrancehttps://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/franceusahttps://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-powerQuoteso far, i think there is no plant operating for more than 61 years of service ?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 09:42:58 pm
content: Illinois has six nuclear power stations in operation, comprising eleven reactors.The oldest was licensed in 1969, the newest in 1987.One license expires in 2026.Illinois has the highest operating nuclear capacity among US States, providing about 53% of the State's power.The political topic of new nuclear power is under discussion in the legislature.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 09:43:42 pm
content: Quote from: Simmed on September 29, 2025, 09:12:18 pm61 years is a long time for 80 year old designs. Nine Mile Point has been in operation since 1969 so 56 years.This is a great time for the US to be building new installations and designs. The reactors out there are very long in the tooth.Nuclear generation appears to have broad and bipartisan support in the US. The Biden administration's signature inflation reduction act provided support for nuclear and the administration intended to triple production of nuclear energy by 2050. Trump continues the encouragement with plans to have the NRC work on optimizing the process and making regulatory compliance more efficient. It's hard to find that level of cross isle support on any topic these days.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 11:16:36 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 06:50:30 pmWell, when talking about what the US should do, I only really care about the cost in the US. But this is also not really true. China built some AP1000 reactors, and they were very expensive to build, so they heavily modified them. Then they modified it further to make a new design but on the same basic principles. By iterating, they have reduced the cost to something that is still expensive but manageable.One of the big problems with the US nuclear industry is that it keeps getting wowed by "silver bullets" -- breeder reactors, pebble bed reactors, thorium reactors, fusion reactors, aneutronic fusion, SMRs, whatever. Exactly the sort of thing that this thread was started about. People get impresses that these technologies will solve some specific problem they have with light water reactors. Then they do a cost estimate and show its cheaper than building a conventional reactor. But those cost estimates are complete horse shit. Because while building the two AP1000s in georgia using a very conventional design with well understood technology, the project ran more than double the budget. The idea that a completely unproven design is going to have accurate cost estimates is laughable. If people in the US were talking about revising the AP1000 to be more efficient to build, I would be significantly less skeptical. As far as I know, the US nuclear industry is not pursuing that at all. The same problem even shows up with novel designs.As for the financial environment, the Vogtle plant construction was lucky enough to not only have government loan guarantees, but to have almost all of its construction take place during a completely unprecedented time of sustained low interest rates. Never before in the history of money has a large economy had a near zero percent real interest rate for 20 years. I can't predict what is going to happen in the future, but if we are returning to more "normal" interest rates it's possible there will never be a less bad financial environment to build nuclear power.QuoteIt's not dispatchable as that term is used in the power industry. Dispatchable and base load are two different concepts, and mostly mutually exclusive. Nuclear power can provide base load power. It's difficult and slow to curtail, and slow to ramp up after curtailment. It's possible to design reactors that are better at this, but it's rare and still not that good. Also, saying "cannot offer without massive backup or storage" is pointless. I might as well say "solar power provides generation of electricity -- something nuclear reactors cannot offer without massive generators." Of course we have to build storage along side solar. We need to build storage along side nuclear plants as well if we want to get off of natural gas peakers. Solar requires _more_ storage, but you can calculate the cost of that.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 11:38:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 29, 2025, 12:09:30 pmWho says GDP is the only measure of economy size? It isameasure, that counts all sorts of non productive "contributions".When asking which economy is larger in the context of electricity production, using the measure of total electricity production seems reasonable.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2025, 11:53:15 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 29, 2025, 06:50:30 pm"standardised methodology" that you continually fail to provide references or explanations for, and is so far below any other credible source that it is unbelievable.Quote from: tszaboo on September 29, 2025, 12:21:23 pmWhere? What is your evidence for this? Has it been demonstrated anywhere?US government bodies put the cost of adding new nuclear power at 8c/KWhhttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2025_LCOE_report.pdfAll sorts of disingenuous economics can be used to discount existing investment to zero and come up with unrealisable "costs" from existing plant.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 12:08:01 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on September 29, 2025, 11:16:36 pmSadly the "dispatchable" label is slapped over nuclear power in the US (EIA report I keep linking above) despite the practical and economic issues you and Siwastaja plainly point out. It's all politics and over what timeframe "dispatchable" is supposed to apply ending up with a binary yes/no. Engineering knows these are continuum and plants have disputability over different timescales. Wind and solar are well proven on 5 and 15 minute timescales, even 30 minutes at a stretch, not enough to cover the slew rates of coal.... but when the marginal cost of nuclear is still greater than wind/solar (which it is:https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator) then why not modulate the nuclear?Both sides want to be the preferred/prioritised energy source in the market, which from a rational economic standpoint should always be the lowest marginal cost generator. Which then kills the already poor economics of Nuclear.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 12:41:14 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on September 29, 2025, 11:16:36 pmMy point was about predictable, stable and continuous generation rather than rapid dispatchability. Nuclear plants can run at full power 24/7 for decades, which solar and wind cannot do without significant storage or backup to cover intermittency. This is what I mean.But building large-scale storage remains a very difficult and unresolved technical challenge. A more practical and effective solution would be to interconnect regional or national grids, allowing excess generation in one area to flow to locations with deficits. This approach would enable nuclear power to cover far more than just 50% of baseload. Unfortunately, political realities intervene — governments often prioritize military spending and conflict over infrastructure development and energy efficiency. Far too much money is being channelled into the pointless destruction of expensive infrastructure built over decades and into the pointless loss of millions of people, rather than into projects that would deliver long‑term public benefit. This misallocation of resources is also one of the key drivers of rising inflation and is likely to exacerbate it further.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 12:50:27 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 12:41:14 amFalse. Like with your other claims where is the evidence for this?Availability (ignoring planned outages) shows consistent unplanned outages:https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/threeyrsenergyavailabilityfactor.aspxEven the US doesnt want to claim more than 92% capacity factor:https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:23:30 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 12:41:14 amSo what?The motor in my car will not go anywhere without a chassis and wheels, amongst other things.The rivers do not supply my drinking water without dams and pipes.Firming is costed.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:47:22 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 12:08:01 amThose inflated LCOE numbers for nuclear projects can be interpreted as a reflection of governmental and systemic inefficiency. The higher these reported costs, the lower the effective efficiency of public administration, reflecting bureaucracy, corruption, the misallocation of budgetary resources, and the lobbying of private interests. In other words, these figures say more about the state’s fiscal management than the true cost, which remains technically and economically very competitive when stripped of artificial financial burdens.Historically, nuclear power plants in my country have produced > 60% of total electricity, yet received less than 20% of the total payments for all generation. Some time ago, government measures even required plants to sell part of their output at extremely low rates "for social needs" — around 0.0024 USD/kWh — in exchange for permission to sell larger volumes at the standard rate of 0.013 USD/kWh. Remarkably, nuclear plants still found this arrangement very profitable.For comparison, "green energy" producers receive over 0.20 USD/kWh, with a guaranteed purchase of any proposed volume. In contrast, nuclear plants face strict maximum limits on how much electricity they can sell, effectively capping their revenue potential.This demonstrates the exceptional economic efficiency of nuclear generation: even under heavily constrained pricing policies and government-imposed distortions and regulatory pressure, nuclear power remains highly cost-effective.Of course, the state can impose taxes, fees, and regulations on nuclear plants to inflate the apparent cost to any level — even 1,000,000 USD/kWh if desired. The ironic point is that they cannot do the reverse: electricity cannot be produced sustainably below the actual cost of generation. Regulations can push inflated costs above real price, but never below.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:53:03 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 01:47:22 amYou say inflated, yet they are consistently found across multiple countries and multiple studies. Yet your position has still no credible evidence. Your analysis using transfer prices in a controlled market are wildly distorted compared to the lifecycle cost, and not realistic or useful when considering what the cost would be to add more generation to a system.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:53:12 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 01:47:22 amOne thing you're leaving out of the equation here, at least for the US:The protections from litigation and compensation afforded by the Price-Anderson Act.Without this artificial prop, which amounts to a subsidy, the nuclear industry would be saddled with insurance costs that they couldn't possibly cover.Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:14:46 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 30, 2025, 01:23:30 amI've seen the term "firming" used in this thread a few times and I have had my suspicion for it contextual meaning but it is unfamiliar in the lexicon I'm used to.So, through the magic of Google. I asked "What does "firming" mean in the context of energy?""In the context of energy, "firming" is the process of making intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, consistently reliable by supplementing them with other forms of energy. Firming is necessary because electricity grids need a stable, continuous supply of power to meet demand, which is a challenge for renewables that depend on variable weather conditions."What geographic region in the world is the term used?Australia, UK, CanadaNo offense intended, but honestly, I did chuckle a couple of times considering maybe someone's giving the ol power grid a little blue pill.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:19:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 12:50:27 ammost temporary shutdowns are largely regulatory rather than technical. Reactors are often taken offline during seasonal demand minima or periods of high solar output — effectively creating artificial constraints on nuclear generation while favoring “green” sources and coal, which are owned by monopolistic actors benefiting from these policies.In practice, our reactors operate almost year-round, with planned summer outages carefully scheduled around low-demand periods. These stoppages are not due to technical limitations of the reactors, but rather reflect economic and regulatory manipulation to give preferential market advantages to other energy sources.Given the widespread policy of phasing out nuclear power in many countries under external influence while praising “green” energy, it’s no wonder so many voices echo the official line.PS: As far as I recall, serious unplanned shutdowns at a single reactor are extremely rare, typically occurring about once per 5-10 years or something like that, while across an entire fleet of reactors there may be occasional events each year—but these remain exceptional rather than routine.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:25:55 am
content: @radiolistener: You've referred to "my country" many times, but we have no idea what country that is.Care to tell us?If you prefer not to because you're trying to preserve those last shreds of privacy, I totally understand.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:30:18 am
content: Australia's position in deployment of solar and wind energy and firming it with gas peakers and other primarily fossil fuel sources today is a good laboratory to see how the country makes the transition. In this case, of its energy sources, grid changes, and sustainability.There's another interesting factor involved. Australia is a top exporter of fossil fuels with coal and natural gas being number 2 and 3 in the top 5 that I've read.It appears that the Australian government is predicting GDP shrinkage as the primary purchasers China and Japan migrate to other sources too.The stuff I'm reading is pretty precarious with lots of concerns and unanswered questions on how the pivot might be executed. Loss of the revenue, economic impacts of that, and a lot of labor impacts are expected. And they are predicting it to be a significant level of impact by 2030. That's 4 years and some change?That's fascinating, I'll certainly be interested to see how things go.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:31:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 02:19:57 amLargely regulatory? Like changing fuel load? We'll just cut that step out and have the reactors poison out instead and have no power. Your knowledge on these matters is not just limited, but fundamentally wrong.Your claim was 24/7 for decades. Complete and utter nonsense (can't say lies as you seem to believe these things are actually true) like the artificially low "cost" you cling to and refuse to stop quoting.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:44:00 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 02:30:18 amThat was the "plan" after a previous government asked the gas industry what they should do and unsurprisingly the gas industry said use more gas (while supply constrained, so they could profit from the demand induced inflated prices).If you look at the planned and committed projects:https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/nem-forecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-planning-data/generation-informationBatteries are the big thing and there is almost no more gas generation coming online.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:58:43 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 01:47:22 am... for your convenience, as you do.Try supported data instead.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:02:13 am
content: Back on the advent of new US nuclear power coming. It is good to look at the cost of construction and why those costs are so high.In my research these factors are of significance in relation to cost:a. Lack of experience and loss of expertise. We will have to rebuild the trades. This is likely to mean costs come down over time if building continues.b. The length of time building the facilities. Modern and modularized designs should significantly shrink these time lines and costsc. Regulatory instability. This is actually related to both of the above issues. With little experience in regulating new builds and lack of clear and well understood regulations it increases the build delays.d. Financing costs. This is actually also related to a and b to a large extentI, as well as what appears to be a considerable majority of the US population want the nation to have nuclear energy in our energy mix, these issues are not insurmountable at all.The choice to go to the moon wasn't made because it was cheap but for the technological and engineering advancements as well as national pride. It was competition between nations and competition is often a good innovation driver. Today the US can benefit from more moon races.Nuclear isn't a race as much as a stepping stone in my view. But just as we have very economical flights to orbit about every 3 days now, we can also imagine that the innovation and investment in nuclear fission and fusion will likely provide technologies and efficiencies not evident today.I forgot to mention, Australia sits on what might be the worlds largest uranium deposit. Maybe the US can buy that and backstop some of the losses due to lack of fossil fuel exports.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:09:34 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 01:53:03 amWhen I refer to “inflated” costs, I mean figures distorted by regulatory frameworks, artificial pricing limits, and systemic inefficiencies, rather than the intrinsic cost of running a nuclear plant.It’s similar to real estate: a comparable apartment or house can cost vastly different amounts depending on the country, sometimes differing by thousands or even millions of times, even though the size and functionality are practically identical. The intrinsic value doesn’t change — what varies is the regulatory and market environment. This illustrates how “reported costs” can diverge wildly without reflecting the true underlying economics.And it needs to be taken into account that, due to globally-coordinated political McCarthyism targeting the nuclear sector, there are practical constraints on how low reported generation costs can appear. Nuclear energy is actively vilified, with exaggerated stories of accidents and dangers used to intimidate the public. In such an environment, showing nuclear power as profitable would be risky for those officials producing the reports.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:09:51 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 02:14:46 amSo much for googling. Was that the AI response?Firming is as described in relevant documents here:Quote(my emphasis)On what basis would you pretend firming excluded storage, other than bias?Here is the definition from AEMO/CSIRO's Gencost 2024-2025:QuoteThus the LCOE includes all aspects of delivery of power to the customers, and storage is a significant component. It is expected that gaspeaking(note the term) will be used for a while. It will be needed in transition given the rate at which coal plants are expected to be retired.Yes, it will be interesting to see how the transition progresses, the main point being that it will.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:24:29 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 03:02:13 amCategory error.Given the choice to go to the moon, tenders were used to ensure lowest cost to meet the mission. The mission here is provision of sufficient reliable energy. If you prefer higher cost, why do you want to select being less competitive? Why not make that investment in improving storage options and technologies, rather than ceding the field to China?All of the pro-nuclear promotion here continually ignores how economics will play out in coming years. Assume all technologies have a free reign, solar and wind will drive down costs in the day, wind and storage at night. New nuclear cannot compete on a despatchable basis nor an operating cost basis. Thus, at best it will be driven down to a base level of supply (~10%) where it has no need to be wound up or down. At worst it will be driven out of the market entirely, as coal is being over the next few years.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:25:10 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 03:09:34 amRegulatory costs are used in all sorts of misleading ways:https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/Site remediation and clean up? "regulatory"Adding unexpected safety systems? "regulatory"Thats why LCOE tries to include all the costs from greenfield to disposal and clean up, to compare the total cost (whoever that is borne by). You can't just ignore costs like decommissioning and disposal and focus solely on marginal operating cost, if you did that solar and wind look even better.And "concerns" about artificial pricing is rich coming from someone whose entire argument for costing is based on an artificial transfer price.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:42:01 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 30, 2025, 03:09:51 amWhile I can't guarantee that "AI" generated the response, I did quote my query and the response.QuoteI don't see a document referenced here.QuoteI made no such pretense. Do I accuse you of bias for making such accusation?QuoteGlad you got that out of your system.QuoteHubristic confidence in the outcome. I believe that's what you call "bias", right?Maybe you missed the point of my post. I suspect you are looking for fights and my humor didn't settle in.I'll try to explain it to you. I considered the term "firming" funny. The little blue pill is in reference to the commonly used drug for erectile dysfunction. The term "firm" could be used to describe an erection. Giving the power grid a blue pill then could be firming it up and hence the humor. I thought it was funny but I am biased towards my own jokes.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 04:02:02 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on September 30, 2025, 03:24:29 amFallacious reasoning. Biased attempts to contain the conversation to your preferential views.False dilemma: There's not a single reason for a nation to engage in nuclear technology. The aging fleet alone and wish to build replacements as means to maintain the mix and be part of a diverse grid is more than enough to supply reason. We can build both nuclear and whatever else.Red Herring and false dilemma: Arguing that investing nuclear some how stops the US from being dominate in other energy areas. On the contrary, remaining competitive in all of the diverse fields of energy is in the US's best interest. Elon Musk's company Tesla for example builds a substantial amount of the grid storage for Australia (10-15% I believe). The US exports a lot of energy and equipment.Tell me how your views on the US's investment in nuclear differ from that of China or Egypt? Why do you have such an interest in tamping down "pro-nuclear" talk as you call it?Better yet, since you only appear to be interested in picking fights, I'll just add you to my ignore list as its not worth it. Won't see ya!

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 04:31:31 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 03:25:10 amDo you mean that LCOE is defined so broadly that it can include not only all real expenses, but even hypothetical or inflated ones that may never materialize in practice? If so, that would explain why the reported figures look completely detached from the actual economics of nuclear generation.So if I understand correctly, LCOE was essentially designed to make nuclear look as expensive and dangerous as possible, because real operating costs looked far too good compared to "green" energy?PS: By the way, after your comment I began to see more clearly how such large LCOE numbers are formed. What starts as the actual production cost gets multiplied by a speculative margin — in my country, about a factor of 20. But this is not the generation price itself, it is the inflated resale price imposed by a monopoly intermediary that produces nothing and only trades electricity. Nuclear plants sell power at prices roughly 20 times lower, while almost the entire 20x margin is funneled into subsidizing so-called “green energy”.In effect, around 95% of what is counted as the “LCOE of nuclear” is actually a hidden transfer to support renewables: money that never enters nuclear operating costs and never reaches the plants, but is paid out to “green” producers.Interestingly, my country is not even included in those comparisons — perhaps because it would be too obvious that these inflated revenues never actually reach the nuclear plants themselves.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:06:55 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 03:42:01 amTrue. I did not cite the NSW government EPA because it is quite adequately covered by the document I did reference below, Gencost 2024-2025QuoteYou defined firming as follows:Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 02:30:18 amOmission of the obvious fact of storage, already discussed at length here, exposes either gross carelessness with facts in the discussion, or bias. You choose.QuoteTry "predictions based on the analysed economics and observation of commercial decisions by potential investors" which has been the principal basis of my posts here. Bias would be to deny such facts without presenting relevant cause.Edit: typo

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:24:19 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 04:02:02 amNope. It was a category error. The mission is not the means.QuoteIf you have been observing, you will recall that I posited a 10-15% residual mix for nuclear, which cost may be considered strategically useful. Certainly China is doing that. However, the fact that a fleet is aging is not an argument to replace it with the same thing. When bullock drays got old we replaced them with rail and trucks.QuoteWonderful. So is that your federal government policy? What has it to do with the economics of nuclear power?QuoteThey don't. I also spoke earlier about contexts and geography. Leaders are also capable of poor decisions.QuoteRational economics in relation to the target. What is your reason for talking it up?QuoteWho opened this thread with the words?Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 05:55:01 pmDid you imagine you could speakex cathedra?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 09:30:53 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 29, 2025, 11:53:15 pmThere is a daily bidding process for the electricity generation, and that's how much they bid. I typically quote this number from the BZN/HU market because that's what I am familiar with, and it has a 40% nuclear base load. Meaning that about 40% of the total electricity demand over the year for that region is nuclear.The levelled cost of electricity of that plant (Paks) is a well published 3 eurocent. This includes the building cost of the plant, which is not being compensated in the bids anymore.You have to keep in mind that we talk about prices compared in 3 different currencies. Two eurocent is worth more than 0.02 AUD

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 09:53:45 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 30, 2025, 01:53:12 amIt is quite common for governments to pick up the bill for events which can't be insured on an individual basis. For example: the US has FEMA as a government organisation to aid people to recover from natural dissasters like flooding, wildfires and so on. So it is not like nuclear power plants are an exception where the government steps in as an insurance agency.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:44:10 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 02:19:57 amOr lack of sufficient water flow.This record is build on BWR/PWR though, it takes a lot of hopeful thinking to guess sodium cooled reactors could equal that.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 12:28:54 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on September 30, 2025, 09:30:53 amYou're falling into the same fallacious argument as radiolistener... that power is sold for 1-2c on the market (from some sort of generator) does not imply that is its actual cost. That is merely the price at that point in time and is not guarantee that price can be sustained previously or into the future. Power plants in the Australian market bid low prices the majority of their operating time and make most of the profit during brief and infrequent exceptionally high prices, so cherry picking any specific spot price can wildly distort the lifetime price or income.Like I already said, take a week when I drive my car and spend nothing on it OMG FREE TRANSPORT. Except all those costs which were borne in other periods of time.That is why you need to point to some longer term period and then amortise the accumulated capital costs over the actual operational life (and all the fun of time value of money and financing). Or the really simple task of just finding some credible source which has done that for you. Why is it that I cannot find a single reference for the LCOE of Nuclear power lower than 3c/kWh (already an outlier) yet you claim it is completely normal to be well below that?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:11:17 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 12:28:54 pmFrance had a fixed price of 4.2 cents for the past decade, which included profit and decommissioning costs.I'm not surprised you cannot find data showing it's cheaper. Usually Central and Eastern european designs were the cheapest to build and politics changed, cost isn't calculated the same way. Look up plants built on Skoda reactors, without kilometers of red tape. They were really cheap to build.And no it's not a fallacy. If the plant is already paid for, then the actual cost of operating it still can be 1-2 cents.But I don't think you should get fixated on the LCOE, and just the kwh numbers. Nuclear is a strategic asset, you cannot compare it to ie solar power one on one. Especially as decommissioning or storage costs are never calculated for renewables.The real question is, why cannot we build cheap nuclear anymore? I just heard a story, that they wanted to build a reactor, with the exact same specifications as other 3, next to an existing reactor, and they hade to write 40000 pages of environmental studies.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:11:55 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 30, 2025, 09:53:45 amIndemnification and coverage by the government are pretty common. The following is a list of some instances in the US that are top of mind:Flood insurance is backed by FEMA through the NFIP. In Florida there's some very interesting dynamics around flood insurance.Pharmaceutical companies are indemnified by the government for vaccines, in the US that VICPTARP was used to bail out GM, Bank of America, Citi GroupThe Fed guarantees loans on education and agricultureThe FDIC insures your banking deposits

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:39:37 pm
content: The continued nonsense of those that are against nuclear is numbing and dumb. They have started with "ROI" and then moved the goal to price per KWH.The whole while, there's tons and tons ofvery good reasons for nations to pursue nuclear energyin both fission and fusion.Nuclear is a clean, efficient, reliable and importantly stable source of energy. No one advocated for it to be the only energy source. As a considerably good match for the typical coal generation it could easily be used to replace it. But importantly in the US, keep a mix of energy by replacing the old installations of nuclear with modern designs. Even using those that can help eliminate the waste of the older systems.The fallacies of false dilemma, red herrings, and strawman arguments is never ending. Literally a few posts up, someone that got added to my ignore list posited that the US pursuit of nuclear cedes everything else in energy to China. WTF? How dumb is that false dilemma? That's the level of straw grasping and foot stamping that's going on. Childish nonsense by luddites and fear mongers.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 01:59:04 pm
content: Quoteyea its so clean once its done with it can be left to rot down without any risk ,but hey who cares about that ,thats the next generation's problem

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:04:04 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on September 30, 2025, 01:59:04 pmDo you want to estimate how much more radioactivity we released by coal fired power plants, compared to nuclear? Including the accidents.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 02:10:05 pm
content: No energy source is completely clean. Solar panels have to be made and installed, resulting in some pollution and the same is true for wind turbines, which are can't be recycled.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:18:28 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 02:10:05 pmAbsolutely. Humans do not live at all 100% cleanly. Civilization isn't 100% clean.Its like saying a drug is effective and safe.It never ceases to amaze me the hair-splitting that people are willing to go to to make dumb statements.If it helps anyone prevent incessant pettifogging of some, I mean nuclear is clean in so much as compared to the generally available generation sources.If we go with the level of silly quibbling produced in parts of this thread, the only clean way for humans is to terminate our existence but even that will cause temporary waste and pollution.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 03:31:40 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 04:31:31 amWhere does your country get nuclear power plant fuel, and at what cost?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 04:24:40 pm
content: Quote from: vad on September 30, 2025, 03:31:40 pmFuel is procured from the US (Westinghouse).As for the cost — I do not have precise figures, and such information is rarely disclosed in detail in open sources. I recall seeing an article some time ago in the context of discussing the potential for domestic fuel assembly production and uranium mining, where some estimates were mentioned, but I do not remember the details anymore. What I do remember is that local production was considered highly beneficial, since it would significantly reduce the price of fuel and ensure secure availability in case of any supply refusals.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 04:47:19 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 12:41:14 amIt's not. This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.Storage with batteries is extremely simple and well understood. It is relatively expensive, but there are basically no unresolved technical challenges.People often believe it is an unsolved problem because it is not deployed in large volumes. The only grid scale storage projects (outside the natural storage capability of hydroelectric) are either very short term grid stabilization or small pilot projects. But the reason for this is simple: the current market value of storage is approximately zero. Right now, solar generation can sell 95% of their production capacity for direct consumption at time of production because they are primarily displacing natural gas which is dispatchable. Storing it to use later makes neither technical nor economic sense. That is beginning to change: a few places like California are approaching the level where solar production during the day regularly outpaces demand. Even there however, its only for part of the year, it's a small fraction of overall generation, and a lot of the excess can be sold to nearby states. And in fact, California is already installing grid scale storage to do load shifting from mid-day to late afternoon and evening.From a technical and cost reason, there is no reason why we can't have at least few days or maybe a couple of weeks of battery storage to go with wind and solar generation. That, plus moderate summertime overproduction to have enough capacity for winter usage, would allow the US to satisfy most of it's current and projected electricity demands.It would still be difficult (read expensive) to meet the winter time electricity needs of the northern US, especially if we reduce dependent on natural gas heating and gasoline cars. The east coastal might benefit from offshore wind which is complimentary to solar, while the northwest has a lot of hydroelectric power, but the upper midwest and northern rockies are probably not going to be able to brute force winter production with solar + wind + batteries. There are a few ways to approach that, and nuclear is definitely a possibility -- nuclear that would also benefit from battery storage to cover daily usage cycles and weekly weather cycles. Ohter possiblities are exactly what you suggested: more long range power transmission from the southwest. Maybe one of the more speculative storage approaches like fuel cells or molten salt thermal storage will be practical. But it almost doesn't matter. We can get roughly 90% of the way there with wind and solar, and if we still use gas fired electricity in certain parts of the US during a couple months a year that would be a *huge* win.And here is the kicker: we could do it all in 20 years, basically doing what we have been doing with modest year/year growth. There is simply no way nuclear can do that. We would have to start dozens of plants per year, each year, for the next 10 years, and have them all complete on schedule.By all means, let's keep trying to build nuclear power plants. If we can keep ~30% of the US electricity generation nuclear through a combination of license extensions and new construction that will certainly make it easier.I will say: I have only looked into this in depth for the US. Other countries have significantly different situations. Climate, natural resources, existing infrastructure, cost of labor, and the existing industrial knowledge base are all different. But this thread started about "new nuclear plants in the US" and my contention is that the US does not _need_ nuclear power to get to 90% renewable electricity in 20-30 years. This is backed up by a significant amount of research and well established cost structures. And there is no credible plan to get there with nuclear other than waving a magic wand.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:04:28 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 27, 2025, 05:55:01 pmIn the UK we still pay standing charges and no one will go purely off grid, the more wealthy you refer to don't buy these systems out of ideology, they buy them because they make economic sense. It does not make economic sense to take oneself off of an available grid. Batteries are a money sink, they make sense if you will fully cycle them at least some days in the year but if you have enough to run daily it will cost so much no one will do it. The only ones trying to "go off grid" are the lefty looneys with no technical understanding to the point they think it is cheaper or the conspiracy theorists with the same lacking skillset and misassumptions.if you are not connected to the grid you can't sell back so your investment as wealthier people will see it is not going to pay back as well if at all. sharing is not only caring but cheaper.Also those with home solar and batteries are subsidizing the grid while being charged to do so. I have to export 3kWh to get my standing charge back each day, but my export helps relieve strain on the grid delaying much needed investment in our infrastructure.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:06:29 pm
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on September 30, 2025, 04:47:19 pmExcept for resources. According to official government reports, the UK, Netherlands and Germany combined expect to need about 200TWh of energy storage by 2050 (that is less than 25 years from now). With the current Lithium based batteries, which need about 0.8Mt (megaton) per TWh, a total of 160Mt of Lithium would be required to serve about 180 million people. Problem is, the world's reserve of Lithium is only 28Mt. It doesn't take a genius to understand batteries are a complete no-go for the large scale, seasonal energy storage needed due to the sheer amount of materials and processing needed. Fortunately, it is easy to get to these storage capacities by storing hydrogen underground (salt caverns and gas fields) and this is an existing technology as well; storing hydrogen underground has been done since the 1970's. The Netherlands alone has a theoretical capacity of over 250TWh where it comes to storing hydrogen underground. Germany and the UK see no problems either to meet their storage demands within their borders.I agree that in theory you could do a lot with solar but having a few nuclear power plants running at full capacity 24/7 to reduce the impact of variations in wind & solar production can be helpful. Especially if hydrogen needs to be imported (which is not the case for the US as there is enough desert surface in the US to put solar panels on).

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:21:04 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 04:24:40 pmWestinghouse are defunct.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that fuel wasn't the main cost of operating a nuclear power plant?

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:36:18 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 30, 2025, 05:06:29 pmThat's... exactly what I said? Except for your known fixation on hydrogen, which I included as _one possible_ option, rather than the obvious silver bullet.Battery storage for daily to weekly cycles. In e.g., the southern US you can probably do solar year round, since the demand drops so much in winter that the reduced solar is tolerable without seasonal storage. For more northern climates (which definitely includes northern europe!) that's not going to be enough, and you need a different kind of storage (possibly fuel cells), alternate production (possibly including nuclear), or to transmit power from sunnier areas. Presumably a mix of all three is most effective.The US is definitely in a much better position for solar than Europe for a lot of reasons Lower average latitude, lower max latitude, larger land mass with more deserts, larger interconnected utility grids without international boundary issues. What works in the US is not necessarily going to work in Europe.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:39:31 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 05:21:04 pmIt's not. And even if it was, it's well established that the operating costs of a nuclear power plant (fuel included) are very low. It's more expensive than operating costs of a solar farm, but still quite low. It's just paying the interest on the construction loan that's expensive.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 05:48:50 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 05:21:04 pmI do not know what kind of financial or tax arrangements the company went through, but it continues to operate in the nuclear fuel business and is actively supplying fuel, including to my country.It seems just as "defunct" as nuclear power is supposedly "uneconomic".

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:25:26 pm
content: Seehttps://westinghousenuclear.com/"Shaping Tomorrow's Energy Through Advanced Nuclear Technology"

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:34:47 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 30, 2025, 06:25:26 pmI didn't know about that. I was thinking about Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:44:56 pm
content: When I was in college in the 19-ought-80s I took a poli-sci course on environmental politics. We had to write a paper at the end; I chose to cover the topic of nuclear waste disposal at two proposed sites in the western US. Ended up not only getting an A on it but I won a $100 cash prize for it.In it I looked at the two sites that were then being considered for "site characterization", the step before actually selecting the site and moving forward on a nuclear waste repository: Canyonlands in Utah and Yucca Mountain in Nevada.Long story short: Canyonlands was rejected; Yucca Mountain was selected as the sole US nuclear waste repository site.But no work has been done on it, as the whole thing is tied up in court in cases between the states and the Dep't. of Energy, which has been the case all along in the entire process of attempting to build a repository.The upshot is thatthe US has no permanent nuclear waste disposal capabilities.None. Zero.Think about that for a minute: we're planning new reactors, but there's nowhere to put the shit that they generate.Highly radioactive shit.Currently, spent fuel rods are sitting in cooling pools at reactor sites, just like they have been for the last 5 decades, with no sign of a light at the end of the tunnel.This is insane, in my opinion.Dunno what the situation is in other countries, but I suspect that some of them are in the same bind here. (I'd be curious to hear about waste disposal arrangements in other places, as I haven't investigated that.)

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:54:04 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 06:34:47 pmThere's also the Westinghouse Air Brake Company, known as WABCO, now part of ZF.https://aftermarket.zf.com/en/aftermarket-portal/our-brands/wabco/

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:55:53 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 30, 2025, 06:44:56 pmYears ago I worked on an x-ray inspection project for Sweden, who were testing carefully built copper vessels for undersea disposal. They looked like a huge beer can, and we x-rayed the weld around the lid. I have no information on the current status of that project.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 06:59:46 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 30, 2025, 04:24:40 pmAnd where did your country get fuel during the first 8 years of Russian invasion (from 2014 through 2022)? And what is the cost, in terms of human lives and destruction today, for those deals with the enemy during the wartime (2014-22)?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 07:02:22 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 30, 2025, 06:55:53 pmUndersea disposal? Bad, terrible, horrible, despicable idea, no matter what kind of vessels used.As if those vessels are going to last the ages, impregnable against all catastrophe.This is only marginally better than our (the US) dumping of raw nuclear waste at sea in the early days of the Manhattan Project and early nuclear electricity generation.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 07:04:04 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on September 30, 2025, 05:04:28 pmI agree, folks are making the decision for savings if they can. Hawaii in particular has the highest cost of energy of any US state. That state is a proving ground to some extent. A grid tie fee makes sense. I believe the lower the numbers of people on the grid buying from the grid will drive up cost.Over the past 20 years the rate of solar installations there have skyrocket and the cost of energy from the grid has and continues to go up dramatically.The dynamics there are:High cost of importing all fuelAging infrastructure that's in need of major overhaulsMy house will need a roof in the next 10-15 years. I have to maintain a backup power solution due to family health requiring pharmaceuticals that require refrigeration and living in a very hurricane region. Hell, my wife tells me a transformer blew up just down the street and power was out all night last night.Our locality doesn't allow home wind but with the breeze at home that would be awesome. So, I'm trying to figure out when I can do a roof and solar to eliminate my generation. Though I suspect I'll end up keeping the generation capablity for some time until I can prove out a solar installation.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 07:51:38 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 30, 2025, 06:44:56 pmThere was quite some work done and monoy spend in Yucca mountain. However the result was that the site is not really suitable and they need to find a new place. The US has a site for limited quantety nuclear waste from research and similar near Carlsbad NM.It is kind of normal to keep the used fuel elements in temporary storage for some 30 or 50 years. This reduces the heat production quite a lot and the waste can be stored closer together and less release of helium that can make containers swell. However after some 50 years there is no more good excuses to build new reactors before a final waste disposal site.A few countries are somewhat in plan with a disposal site: Finland, Switzerland and to some degree France. Sweden could also be somewhat OK, but no longer under water. Like the US Germany spend a lot of money on a first try, only to abandon the site. The initial place was more a political decision, close to the border with east Germany. They somehow pushed it quite some time even after it got obvious that the site is not suitable (not enough cover over the body of salt and natural gas in the salt). So back to start and hoping to find a site in some 30 to 50 years. At least not more new reactors before a disposal site works. The German test site ("Asse") in an old salt mine is slowly turning into a desaster with water ingress and the plans to remove much of the waste if possible.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 08:01:42 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on September 30, 2025, 07:51:38 pmThe other problem with centralized storage is the need to transport the containers to that location. There was a big amount of fear mongering about that years back. The containers are built and proven to survive a disaster but people were out drumming up fear about them being on rail cars.Install the breeder reactors near the current systems and use the waste for fuel.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 08:02:03 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on September 30, 2025, 07:51:38 pmYeah, I covered that in my report: it's called WIPP, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.Which was a series of one fuck-up after the other. From my report:QuoteSo no, WIPP ain't ever gonna be an actual repository.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 08:13:58 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 30, 2025, 07:02:22 pmActually, the Swedish group was very careful in its metallurgy for this project, not just going by gut feel.Also, to use carefully chosen underwater sites.Our involvement was x-ray inspection at the pilot site, so they could perfect their e-beam welding technique.There were two large radiation cells: one for the electron beam welder, which ran huge currents at a few hundred kV, and the second for our x-ray machine, which ran at 9 MV.The cool thing was the gadget used to move the cylindrical copper thingie from one cell to another (both, above floor level).It was a hovercraft, capable of being pushed around the floor manually, that housed the elevator and rotation stage used for both operations.It fit neatly into fixed brackets using a "knife edge" round wheel to go into a groove, easy for manual operation.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 08:52:38 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on September 30, 2025, 06:44:56 pmThere's a bit of a cyclic problem here. Whenever a solution would be proposed, people like you will scream bloody murder. When a proposed solution is shot down due to too many people screaming bloody murder, the people screaming bloody murder will complain that there is no solution, while making it a point of pride that they shot down a proposed solution that they did not like because muh muh glowing green radioactive goblins bad.And the same is true for a lot of nuclear related issues - any research into advancing nuclear, nuclear safety, nuclear storage... faces strong opposition, mostly because the damn Russians failed at boiling water. The word nuclear is more toxic than the technologies themselves.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 09:08:51 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 30, 2025, 08:13:58 pmI don't know if this is the thread but I find this fascinating. I watched and read some of work and engineering that went into producing the transport containers for the US. Hard problems drive technology and innovation. Per memory, the containers originally meant for Yucca mountain were also designed for automated handling.Been beautiful weather here in Chicago this week. Big waste water convention in town. I was surprised when I chatted with some attendees that they had little to no knowledge of the engineering feet of re-routing the river here for waster water problems. Seems like such a, uh, waste.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 09:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on September 30, 2025, 08:52:38 pmJust to put this in a more realistic context, instead of arm-waving about shouting about "people screaming bloody murder", that's not how nuclear policy is decided, at least not here in the US (and no doubt in many other countries as well). Not that people screaming bloody murder don't have aneffecton nuclear policy, but that's not how those policies are ultimately made.As the excerpt from my paper shows, nuclear policy involves many agencies: in the US, there's the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and others depending on the particular case.In addition, you have the federal government and the government of the state in which the nuke is sited, each of which has sometimes conflicting areas of jurisdiction and are often at odds with each other. Not to mention the US military which produces its own piles of waste, which by law are treated differently from civilian waste (power plants), which also causes conflicts.All of which means that any of these conflicts can cause the dispute to move to the most expensive and time-consuming forum of all, the judicial system.Now if one is a careless, free-market libertarian who cares not at all about the consequences of nuclear technology, just the short-term solution of providing energy (and making $$$!) then sure, why bother with any protections at all? Just eliminate all this byoo-ocracy and fast-track the damn licenses and construction permits. Full speed ahead! Damn those pesky eggheads complaining about "glowing green radioactive goblins bad".

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 09:53:27 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 09:08:51 pmMovements of the nuclear waste containers by rail were supposed to be a deep secret, but railroad scanners could hear traffic about the “glow train” across southern Illinois.I should be shocked by reports that attendees at a waste water conference were unaware of the Chicago River reversal (ca. 1900), but I can separate my feelings of shock and being appalled. The watershed that needed crossing was about 2 m high (if I remember correctly), so it wasn’t Panama Canal level engineering. I live near the North Branch of the river, which still flows in the original direction, but the Main and South Branches have been civilized; an extra channel from Wilmette was added to keep the North Branch flow towards downtown. There used to be a 50 cm high waterfall where it met the North Branch, but that was demolished recently.The South Branch was redirected into the Sanitary and Ship Canal, which incorporated an earlier canal, to reach the Mississippi by way of the Illinois River.Meanwhile, here in Chicago, armed Feds in camouflage (which doesn’t work in an urban environment) with long guns are protecting us from the tourists in popular parts of town, but have not been seen in higher-crime areas. Chicago always was a good theater town.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:01:24 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 30, 2025, 09:53:27 pmI remember that channel well, growing up in Evanston: "the canal", as I recall us calling it, had a couple-feet-high cap of white foam on it in the bad old days before they banned phosphates in detergents. Looked like the outflow from someone's washing machine.QuoteYep. Like I always say, got to protect us from those evil tourists and tourism. Be a vigilant anti-tourist!I think they're afraid to go into the deep West Side or South Side ...

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:07:38 pm
content: Any local cop could direct them to actual crime: whom did they ask?

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:19:59 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on September 30, 2025, 01:39:37 pmNo. It is proponents who focus on cost per kWH and others have discussed that. My focus has been on commercial viability of new builds and likely place of nuclear in the future, a small baseload for strategic purposes.QuoteThis is generally valid. What you are not addressing at any time is the proportion of power it might contribute in meeting those aims. I have posited 10-15%. That may be optimistic other than as a strategic expense.QuoteNo, I did not. I described risk. Is that unfamiliar to you? I answered your comment on capability previously.Interesting that while claiming to ignore me you have now already responded in some fashion to me twice by the time of this post to which I am responding, Your "ignore" is most likely your escape from having to deal rationally with responses, so you can chuck around false claims then run away.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:45:17 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 02:10:05 pmAnyone who worked for a decade or longer in engineering understands, that you have to pick from solutions that have downsides. Every engineering decision is picking a compromise on something. If you want something to be perfect, you are making a mistake.Net zero and 100% renewable plans don't understand that their compromise would be cost, that's actually impossible to pay with current technologies. And reliability. Or they foolishly think that there are no downsides to their plan.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 10:55:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on September 30, 2025, 05:06:29 pmYou're still going on about storage being resource constrained and difficult?https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/power-cut-in-spain-and-portugal/msg5916342/#msg5916342Pumped hydro, mature, cost effective, and so much untapped resource it is unbelievable.... except in the Netherlands and some other flat countries.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 11:04:17 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on September 30, 2025, 02:10:05 pmYep.I was astounded to read an article, some years ago, about protests in a town against a proposed solar (PV) production facility.One of the things that came out was that part of the process involved burning coal. In significant amounts.Yes,coal!Ironic, no?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 11:04:43 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on September 30, 2025, 01:11:17 pm4.2c/kWh plausible, but likely still some other financial input or cost written off/ignored.So if your argument is correct and we should price power on what the marginal cost of a fully depreciated asset produces. Then you'll have no issue giving that asset away for free? I'll take it, you say it profits and is worthless. The US can import a bunch of old reactors at no cost from other countries who have paid for them, then they'll have cheap power!Reality: if you want to add new reactors, you need to count all the costs.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 11:09:20 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 11:04:43 pmYes. Including decommissioning.And really, it should include costs (at least partial costs) up and down the entire fuel cycle:miningmillingfuel rod fabrication (assuming standard LWR)fuel rod & waste transportspent fuel and waste disposal

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2025, 11:11:25 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on September 30, 2025, 10:45:17 pmExcept on the current (or projected) LCOE, nuclear is too expensive to compete. Wind, Solar, Hydro, and Batteries together in some mix end up cheaper. Even being obtuse and insisting on only one generating technology and one storage technology, still cheaper for renewables compared to nuclear.Sure that might end up with a massive "overcapacity" during periods of high generation, but the price differential is so great it still ends up cheaper and you have a bunch of extra energy "free" that will find new uses such as electricity to hydrocarbons, or seasonal aluminium production.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:15:34 am
content: On the question of ROI for new builds vs ¢/kWH for existing plant, consider other major commercial projects. There are many instances of things such as mines, motorways, even real estate where the initial investors have made an unsound decision and duly lose their shirts, entering bankruptcy or forced sale. Losses are written off, some companies and people lose everything. However, the distressed actual or partial asset exists. Another party picks it up at the knock-down price and can (not always) operate it profitably, the reason being someone else paid (lost) their capital. None of that future use negates the initial ROI analysis or makes the initial investment sound.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:15:28 am
content: Quote from: TimFox on September 30, 2025, 09:53:27 pmI've been in an out on the streets of Chicago with social and business engagements all week. I just got back to my hotel from meeting a friend for an Italian Beef. The streets are full and the weather is nice. Me and the friend I met for a sandwich, walked for a while to see the sites and didn't seen any federales. I joked that they must have started going with more sensible camo. I know the police get a "good deal" or whatever its called on surplus military gear but I don't understand what they think its good for other than looking like a prick.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:44:50 am
content: It looks like the NRC just clearedPoint Beach for 80 years of operations. That's an amazing life span. Compact, safe, clean, and resilient energy generation for a generation.Even cooler is the news thatPacific Fusion is going to open a facility in New Mexico.2024 was a record year for world generation of power via nuclear.I wasn't aware that Belgium had rolled back their phase out of nuclear power. It seems that single source of energy (Russia) I mentioned earlier in this thread had some bearing on that decision. Duh! Staying in the European theater it seems that the UK actually has the most costly build expense for new nuclear projects. Hinkle Point is under construction now and there's 12 plants coming.Since Australia doesn't seem to have plans to use all that uranium they have, exporting that may offset the downturn due to losses in exports of fossil fuels. By current estimates, Australia has the largest of the typical mined uranium in use today; about 2 million tones.I'm sure all of this will trigger the alarmist and anti-nuclear ilk of the thread.Hilarious.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:48:14 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 01:15:28 amIf you want to see the real Chicago, the one the terrorists--sorry, the tourists--don't see, do this:Get a cab (do those things still exist?) or some other ride and tell them you want to take a tour of Lower Wacker Drive. The part that goes beneath the city. It's a great Magical Mystery Tour, almost a mile or so, underneath downtown.Make sure they know what that is before you accept the ride.Bonus points if they can drop you off at the Cubby Bear, the pub associated with the Blues Brother himself, John Belushi.(@TimFox, please tell me they haven't "cleaned up" this part of the city.)

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 02:43:11 am
content: Google for. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor to see the latest design from GE/Hitachyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Simplified_Boiling_Water_ReactorBesides passive safety systems, it has also deleted circulation pumps and related power/control systems. Passivw ia good!I don't know if or how many of these systems have been sold.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 02:51:53 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 01, 2025, 01:48:14 amNot this trip but last night me and a coworker had burgers and Chicago handshakes at the Billy Goat Tavern. (The OG)

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 03:23:41 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 01, 2025, 01:48:14 amThe Chicago city government is pretty good about cleaning the streets, so Lower Wacker is not full of litter, but it is still dark and lonely down there. Lots of basement entrances to the local buildings. They periodically kick out the homeless population from Lower Wacker.The lower level streets go north of the River, but I'm not sure how far (certainly not so far as Addison St): the Lake Shore Drive and Michigan Ave bridges are double-level.Lower Wacker Dr and Lower Michigan Ave are the most important lower-level routes. A confusing map:https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/zhbl39/exploring_3_level_streets_in_chicago/The TV news was full of images of the Federal invasion over the weekend, but I didn't see anything today (Tuesday).The local ICE headquarters is in the suburb of Broadview, which has grown tired of ICE tear-gassing its fire and police departments.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 04:14:30 am
content: Can we stick to nuclear plants please.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 04:32:19 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 07:24:47 amSo use automated load management to adapt the demand to supply. With nuclear as a "guaranteed" source, that's an easier problem to solve. And thermal storage HVAC would be a very economical form of storage applicable anywhere there's significant HVAC demand.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 05:37:47 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 11:04:43 pmIt is in the right ballpark for sure, but people thinking "omg cheap electricity" are seriously misguided here. Maybe because they compare to their own contracts, which include energy sales company expenses and profits and risk management, taxes, possibly grid/transport fees, or maybe they even have an expensive contract, happens all the time, people sign poor contracts and then complain.So as a reminder, we are talking about large-scale energy market, not end-user prices. Different thing.Here 4.2c/kWh is roughly the annual average of energy markets, including all the high peaks. Some people pay that + taxes, some pay significantly more if they have poor contracts (their own fault).

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 05:55:36 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 01, 2025, 05:37:47 amYes, one step removed from the retail prices. So once you have an average of your wholesale market prices (plus some forecasting if you are game) then the LCOE numbers become easy to compare for nuclear as it is very consistent generation across the day (even wind, not everywhere has a diurnal cycle and it is often small in magnitude). More effort for raw solar as you need to time weight the whole prices, which is why including battery (or other) storage with solar for a firmed LCOE is very reasonable.... yet still ends up cheaper.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 06:43:34 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 11:11:25 pmLet's do it your way. Does this plan work during the winter.Do you have a plan for a winter evening, where the solar output has been 5% of the summer for weeks. Or your battery will be empty and you need rolling blackouts?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 07:16:54 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 06:43:34 amWhich region has 5% of summer peak solar generation for any sustained period of time? Somewhere in the far latitudes that isn't suited to solar generation. In which case to meet the single generator constraint, I'd suggest wind rather than something unsuitable.Is that the case for the US, or the majority of the world? No.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 07:57:13 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 07:16:54 amIt's quite common in Northwestern Europe in winter: <8 hours of sunlight on the shortest days of the year and wind is no good, because cold weather is often anticyclonic. At the moment, natural gas provides most of the electricity, under said conditions. Nuclear would make sense. The excess during summer and when it's windy could be used to produce synthetic natural gas.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 08:04:45 am
content: Quote from: daqq on September 30, 2025, 08:52:38 pmThe Yucca montain side was not shut down because of protests. The main problem was the geology / ground water, that made the site not suitable. The protests where only there to react to the problems with the site.The problem of the lack of a disposal site remains.Germany had very much the same problem: spend quite some money in a site that than turned out to be not suitable and now the need to find a new place. The costs to a large part is payed by the state, not the nuclear industry.Finding a suitable site gets even more difficult in smaller, denser populated countries, like the Netherlands or Belgium.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 08:30:53 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 07:57:13 amIndeed, the northern European countries are much more suited to Nuclear and it would be interesting if there is an LCOE assessment across their region, and what sort of production variation they see in wind and solar. But completely not the US situation.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 09:10:42 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 08:30:53 amThe US is pretty vast with highly diverse regions, states, and demands. Generalizations of the most suitable types of generation in such a case is inappropriate.Take for example, Alaska and Puerto Rico they have little in common. TheUS military in collaboration with Alaska is installing its first micro reactor there.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 09:20:29 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 09:10:42 amSure, but none of the grid regions are in a geographically small arctic nation with limited solar capacity unless you single out Alaska alone, using LCOE figures calculated for the US situation is entirely appropriate to estimate the cost of US power generation options.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 10:09:14 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 09:20:29 amCoastal locations, at similar latitudes in the US, have about the same amount of sunshine in the darkest months of the year, as Northwestern Europe. Yes, there more sunny in summer, due to the North Pacific ridge going further north in summer, than the Azores high, but it's not needed so much then.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climatehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#ClimateUnfortunately wind speeds aren't given, but I expect they're similar.I don't know how much enegry Seattle gets from more sunny areas, during Novermber to January.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 10:24:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 09:20:29 amI appreciate you have a passion for renewables. If someone is building a nuclear fusion/fission reactor, it does not impact you building your preferred generation.Limiting discussions to, or prioritizing cost isn't really enlightening. It would also mean that consumer deployed PV should be avoided given the high cost. I've been planning my own PV installation for a couple years but cost is only a factor. Life of my roof and when that needs to be replaced is also a factor. There's also other things going on in my household that impact the "when."The deployment of nuclear energy is happening and obviously for lots of reasons. LCOE for nuclear is based on old data in the US and depending on the value entered for life expectancy of the plant it can have substantial impact on the numbers. The data from countries that are actively involved in building and deployment show much lower costs are achievable. Regardless, the cost are obviously not prohibitive.But again, constraining discussion of nuclear energy to a cost per kwh is neither useful or interesting. It's a factor. I have no interest in the argument if its simply to say it cost money and something else is cheaper. There's diversity and price variance in everything. A 8.5 DMM isn't cheap...

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:01:07 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 10:09:14 amInsolation would be a better comparison than hours > 120W/m2. But look up that quote tree... is it a 20:1 ratio between summer and winter? No it's around 5:1 which is back in the realms of reality rather than the disingenuous outlier proposed. Sure is a lot of nit picking and quibbling around the edges and still not refuting that US LCOE figures are made for the US situation including things such as their typical insolation for solar.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:14:08 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 10:24:48 amThe LCOE is a model, various different groups select different inputs but they show their assumptions and models so they can be criticised/compared/considered for what they are. Instead we have a pile on in here where reliable neutral sources are simply ignored/dismissed with "whataboutisms" like you're pushing. So you think the assumptions about the lazard US LCOE analysis are flawed? Tell us about that, how could it be improved? what would the result be by adopting your suggestions? No, you'll just pooh-pooh it without actually checking the details, such as they have projected into the future and not just used past data and adjusted life expectencies. So immediately it's clear you didn't even read their reports.Nuclear should be part of the mix, adding too much becomes counter productive as they throttle back. But the US already has about optimal Nuclear generation mix and can life extend its existing fleets for some time. Building more right now would likely increase the cost of power in the future (or bankrupt the operator) which is why corporations are not investing their private money in such enterprises.People shouting from the rooftops that adding more Nuclear (rather than cheaper alternatives) will make electricity cheaper, thats the problem here because there is no credible source to support that.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:23:04 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:01:07 amI would expect the difference in insolation would be far greater than sunshine hours. You'll get much less than 20% of the energy in the months, with 20% of the sunshine hours in winter compared to summer.Averages are considerably different to the extremes. The max/min recorded temperatures of each month in these locations, tell you how variable these climates are. I wouldn't be surprised if the extremes are greater than 20:1. A dark, foggy day around the winter solstace will hardly have any measurable insolation, compared to a cloudless day in June.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:35:22 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 10:09:14 amSo go out and find the data to support your claims?https://www.solar-electric.com/learning-center/solar-insolation-maps.html/Some small corners of the maps might have 5:1 ratios, within larger grid regions where that is the minority situation. Realistically most of mainland US solar is somewhere around 2:1 or 3:1 all of which has already been included in the LCOE numbers.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:37:04 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:23:04 amI hear you like to talk, but not actually check for sources. So how about stop baselessly criticising others careful analysis of real world data?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:45:59 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 07:16:54 amI get 460 KWh in the summer, and 36KWh in December.The 5% ballpark output is going to be applicable for most of the developed world.Offshore wind is 5.8 cents for the Netherlands, which has world leading best costs on it, is more less on par with nuclear even by your estimate. The cost of nuclear is a legislative issue, not a technical one. It doesn't cost 30 Billion to build a nuclear plant. The NIBJ bullshit, financing institutions leeching money, corruption that's what's expensive. South Korea can build a 1.4GW plant for 4 Billion.BTW it's nut surprising that someone (no pun) from Australia wouldn't understand nuclear, you guys never had one. I have friends that worked as engineers after graduation there. Having it as something that you can just go to, and see it working, as opposed to some foreign concept, makes a big difference. LCOE doesn't matter. It's still 1/30th to 1/4th of the number on your electricity bill. And it's there, making energy even for your grandchildren.I was onboard with the same as you a few years ago. Since that, I've seen the numbers, and they don't work, it's just wishful thinking. What you say works all the way to 70-80% of total consumption, the last few percent is very expensive to get. The plan which includes P2G, gas fired power plants and nuclear,next to bulk energy made by renewables, that plans can cover more than 100% of the electricity usage, meaning that some of the gas fired heating can be covered with renewable sources.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:49:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:35:22 amYeah, because almost the entirety of Europe is to the north of the US. Just look at the map.And it's not a desert where the E. Coyote and the road runner run with nothing around.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:52:40 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:37:04 amWhy do you appear to be taking things personally?Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:35:22 amI'm not claiming anything as a fact, but questioning, because my own experiance differs.Those maps are monthly values, not daily extremes. The December one shows minimums of0to 2 kWh/m2in the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes areas, so it could just as easily be 10:1 or worse, because the map doesn't have enough resolution.Data from the Southern England shows about 1:6 or 1:8 between January and July, but it will be far greater on a daily basis.One needs to take the daily extremes into account, not monthly values, because energy can't be stored fo that long.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 11:59:09 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 11:45:59 amI agree, that last 20% is a pain and Nuclear would be a good fit for that in many regions. How much Nuclear share does the US have? 20% !Other have run the numbers and think 100% with storage is still feasible and cost effective:https://www.rethinkx.com/energy/in-depth/clean-energy-u-curveBut you have to get the storage capacity sized right, straw man arguments are at both opposite extremes of:every day must be fully self contained, low storage, Zero999 above with:Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:23:04 amor in the other direction all energy must be consumed and none shall be spilled (despite that not occurring today) by adding massive seasonal storage, the other equally uneconomic extreme.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:09:58 pm
content: As Zero999 pointed out overgeneration doesn't help if there is nothing to generate with. I get that it is hard for an Aussie to imagine the sun isn't shining most of the day but Europe is located further from the equator compared to the most southern point of Australia's main land. Seasonal variations are large in Europe.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:13:54 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:52:40 amLets see, a group of posters making up their own numbers out of thin air to somehow refute well though through and referenced methodologies, over and over again and attributing it to my comments rather than the sources. That would be you choosing to make it personal, continuing off on bizarre tangents rather than addressing the actual issues.Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:52:40 amBecause adding renewables without any storage capacity was what I proposed? No, you do not need to worry about the worst day in a single city when there is storage and a larger diversified grid.Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:52:40 amGreat, so find some better data. 10:1 is unbelievable on a rolling average of several days and/or across a wider region. I've run numbers for the Australian grid (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/australia-people-paid-to-not-export-solar/msg5893790/#msg5893790) finding solar makes around a 3:1 variation across the grid of a similar size to the US regions (could be a little higher if shedding was included), and that analysis could be done for the different US grid regions if someone digs up the raw sources. Why can't people actually find credible sources and talk about realistic figures rather than jumping to stupid strawman extremes? both sides.Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 11:52:40 amIn a thread about the US, where I keep trying to steer people back to US data and analysis (lets ship over the Ukrainian zero cost nuclear reactors too).

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:15:58 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 01, 2025, 12:09:58 pmWhich is why I keep pointing back to US data, would you like to point to some US data to support your nit picking?? Oh wait that might require some time and effort and reduce the rate of posting your disingenuous/inflammatory "drop the mic" one liners.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:17:46 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:13:54 pmIf you read my posts, you'll find I questioned the sources.QuoteHave you been able to find any daily data for the US? I keep finding monthly averages, which aren't helpful. There are also other issues in colder regions such as snow on the solar panels.I didn't say that we need we need uneconomic storage, just that we need to be able to cope with the odd week or so per year, when there's no wind or solar energy. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.I already proposed a solution: using excess to generate synthetic natural gas. Hydrogen is another possibility, but it can't be distributed through the natural gas network, although if we can generate enough elecricity then it can be shut down.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:22:20 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:14:08 amShow me where I've made a claim that nuclear would make energy cheaper. Obviously you are simple or something. Can't you understand the plain concepts I've mention are my reasons for supporting continued nuclear energy investments?I briefly looked at the LCOEs. Did you see they set the life expectancy of 70 years for reactors? We just licensed a set for 80 years. Didn't you read my post on that? To me, 15% increase in life expectance might make a substantial difference. To me, building back up the skills and using modular new systems will obviously reduce investment costs.Again, if I follow your advice I'd not invest in my own solar system but select the cheapest alternative. What a crock of BS.But here we go again. You want me to fight you on your terms and I refuse, you lose.Don't be so frightened that other nations decide to build new nuclear energy. Stop the childish stampy foot tantrum.As Ricky Gervais says:

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:25:46 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 12:17:46 pmI'm not looking for it, when multiple credible institutions with different methodologies and data sources come up with similar LCOE figures I believe them. If you think there is some problem, great, show us this while including regional diversity and some level of storage (or some continuum as I did), not some simplistic hyperlocal and short time cherry picking (like the wholesale "price" of nuclear after depreciation extrapolated out to lifetime).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:28:33 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:59:09 amNice website and infographics, without any concrete information.P2G has been investigated by serious researchers, and resulted real world projects being launched.https://publica-rest.fraunhofer.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/cca6bbc3-e227-46bb-a7cd-68c4f8bfce57/contenthttps://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-pushes-17-billion-euro-gas-power-plan-despite-election-uncertainty-2024-11-22The difference is: " It would be nice to buy so much batteries, only if there was capacity to make them" vs "This plan works, we are investing Billions into it to make it work"There is no seasonal battery storage, it's not economic. And probably never will be.Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:13:54 pmIt's the reality.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:45:14 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 12:28:33 pmAh another "didn't look can't see" wont make an effort?https://www.rethinkx.com/hubfs/Energy+Reports+-+Methodology-1.pdfThey'll hand over much more if you ask. It is particularly topical as they did detailed analysis in US regions including New England, for which they say:QuoteAnd then go on with critiques of overusing LCOE for radical changes as emergent behaviour in larger shifts of generation sources disrupts many of the assumptions (I'll say for example adding more nuclear will reduce the load factor of the fleet).Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 12:28:33 pmI've always said electricity to hydrocarbons are likely to take off... once there is significant spilled generation from "zero" marginal cost plants (which nuclear isn't).Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 12:28:33 pmGreat, over to you to show that.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:49:59 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:25:46 pmLook up Dunkelflaute or anticyclonic gloom.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflautehttps://www.nationalreview.com/corner/wind-energy-the-return-of-anticyclonic-gloom/https://storelectric.com/dunkelflaute-energy-storage/Fair enough, it's especially common in Europe and Japan. I don't know about the USA.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 12:55:28 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:45:14 pmI mean, only like 3 people pasted maps here showing exactly that. Plus it's weather. It's enough that it happens once in 10 years to make your plan unreliable...Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:45:14 pmAh another "didn't look can't see" wont make an effort?https://www.rethinkx.com/hubfs/Energy+Reports+-+Methodology-1.pdfThis is still doesn't look like a serious study. It's just showing some market trends and points out that they think it's possible. Totally ignoring the available battery production capacity.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:04:12 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 12:22:20 pmThat was pretty clear in your early posts:Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 01:22:54 amBut now, caught out talking nonsense attempting to refute pretty bland claims around LCOE, you try to reframe the situation and make yourself the victim? Really?Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 12:22:20 pmI'm not here to do your work arguing against myself. You have questions, go out and answer them! Find some supporting data or analysis. I bring neutral sources that people can consider and instead of reading them, immediately back are a whole bunch of disingenuous "questions". Sealion away and I'll call it out for what it is.Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 12:22:20 pmYou can do whatever you like, residential rooftop solar is far removed from wholesale/gridscale power economics. For some people residential solar is a huge profit and for others its a loss maker.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:07:12 pm
content: Nuclear is all over the news these days.Bloomberg has a reportsaying the US will see a 350 billion dollar nuclear building push.There's also news of repurposing weapons nuclear material andusing nuclear waste to fuel reactors.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:11:49 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 01:04:12 pmWhat part of that didn't you understand? I didn't claim that nuclear is the cheapest energy source, full stop now did I?Did I say that nuclear energy would make "energy" cheaper? Nope. When you've gone a tirade and stampy foot did you see me arguing that nuclear is the cheapest, nope. Shut up, I don't care.There's a whole set of qualifications there that you just ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative. I don't care.I'm done, to the ignore list you go.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:12:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 01, 2025, 12:49:59 pmCommon enough non dimensional blurry concept... in some smaller geographic regions. You want to see what that is like in the US? I'm not familiar with the raw data sources, but rely on others who have checked that and estimated how much storage would be needed:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/stability-of-grids-with-a-high-percentage-of-asynchronous-sourcing/msg5581441/#msg5581441https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf"Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035"

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:18:29 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 01:11:49 pmAnd where have I attributed you saying it is the cheapest source of energy? You started asking (disingenuous?) questions about LCOE, and I pushed back on that referencing non-specific posters in this thread bolstering "nuclear is cheaper" when the evidence says otherwise. Wanting to model all plants at the extreme (cherry picked) example is the sort of misleading crap that I'll call out every time:Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 12:22:20 pm

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:28:32 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 01:18:29 pmWhere did you say it? Are you that LCOE obsessed? Just a few posts above.To me you sent this:QuoteI didn't see you say I wasn't included in "People shouting from the rooftops". Drama much?Then I asked you to show me where I made that claim and you obviously, through your actions, affirmed you were calling me out for it by going back and selecting a quote that doesn't even say what you think it says. Hell no one knows what you're thinking, least of all you.Gollum would be proud. Clutch your precious LCOE to your chest. It will protect you.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 01:51:06 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 01:28:32 pmAh come on, don't be like that. Someone has a good idea about how to change the energy generation, and we are 80% in agreement on how to do it. It's difficult to have these discussions and be the minority opinion. Keep it civil, we might just walk away with a little more knowledge in the end.His plan might actually work for Australia, since it's a large country, few people, has deserts without weather conditions.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 04:58:16 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 01, 2025, 01:51:06 pmHeh, I don't have a problem with LCOEs. As I said to that poster and anyone else, I didn't claim nuclear energy would be the cheapest or make energy generation cheaper. I made qualified statements about it that are "pro-nuclear" and well, that's not going to be ok with some people. The intolerance of ideas and points of view is a modern day catastrophe. I made a joke earlier in this thread and one wacko dude went nanners on it. Jeez, it was a joke.I am not going to apologize for my interest and excitement around nuclear technologies. On the contrary, I'm excited that the US is back in the nuclear game. Give me my "pro-nuclear" badge, I'll wear it. The US isn't alone and it is obvious that no one is making final decisions based on LCOE or whatever, folks need to get over that, its not their decision. We heard you, you disagree. Now move on.Google Earth shows huge areas of arable land paved over by solar arrays. Did someone take into account the consumption of arable land in their math? In one place I've looked there's literally acres and acres of land with solar pavement not more than a few miles from a nuclear plant. That nuclear facility is sitting on the short of a river and based on the images, wouldn't be viable for crops given its salt marsh. That illustrates the issue of greed and overzealousness that seems to override common sense.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 06:07:10 pm
content: You can have very long discussions about pros and cons of certain technologies but in the end it is better to look at what is actually being build & planned. These plans have been made by people in positions where they have a good overview on what is necessary and what is actually achievable given permitting and resource (materials, labour and financial) issues.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 06:17:26 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 09:20:29 amRelying on inflated or broadly assumed figures that include hypothetical or exaggerated expenses can be misleading. For a clearer picture, it is often more useful to focus on the actual operational costs and real-world economics of power generation, rather than the headline LCOE numbers which may reflect regulatory, speculative, or politically-influenced assumptions.In some ways, LCOE calculations resemble the infamous long-term FOREX forecasts: nice polished charts, confident lines, and seemingly precise numbersthat suggest authority and reliability. Yet anyone familiar with FOREX knows how such forecasts aremisleading, inflated, or based on assumptions that never materialize. Similarly, LCOE figures embed hypothetical costs, speculative margins, or regulatory distortions, producing numbers that can be wildly detached from the real, observable economics of electricity generation.The lesson is clear: just because a chart looks convincing doesn’t mean it reflects reality.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 08:22:04 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 01, 2025, 04:58:16 pmLets got back around again:Quote from: Cyclotron on September 28, 2025, 01:22:54 amSo with references pointing out that there are sources of energy of similar or better environmental, human health, and overall cost, compared to nuclear all at the same time. You'll just sit there and say "nope can't see it" and refuse you show your references which apparently you can see?Right, we don't believe you if you can't share credible evidence.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 08:47:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 01, 2025, 06:07:10 pmI agree. I've mentioned it a few times in this thread. There's like 70 reactors being built right now world wide, and 140 or so planned.Whatever data is available, I'd feel pretty comfortable saying they likely have it when folks made the decisions.That seems foreign to some. They are too busy imaging things. pulling a single sentence out of a conversation of context that doesn't even say what they think it says. That's not surprising, given the sad state of things these days.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 10:13:23 pm
content: It's the same people who have no idea how to deal with demographic collapse and are burning forests as wood pellets to meet climate promises on paper only ... but this time it's rational Realpolitik, because? There is no plan, there is only sentiment. The sentiment now is to build nuclear power plants.The west has ridiculous amounts of conspicuous consumption and production capacity ... if it can handle the politics it can solve the problem both ways. Nuclear and PV+hydrogen can both work fine (the hydrogen stored however you like, with some CO2 as synthetic methane if you want). Neither cost so much the people would have to starve.I think the renewable way is more interesting, the nuclear one interests me not. Far more important than cost

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 01, 2025, 10:45:00 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 01, 2025, 10:13:23 pmRenewables are 100% interesting. I've been nerding on my own possible deployment of PV for some time. I'm sure some might think I'm planning to throw money away since there's cheaper alternatives. Nuclear interest me more in the fusion side, and the ability to consume waste of previous generation reactors on the fission side.I've been fascinated by solar power every since I got a glimpse of the Sharp EL-8026 as a child.In the US, nuclear power appears to be equally supported by the two primary political parties. As you said, sentiment is in favor. There's a gold rush mentality in AI to plugin AI data centers, so there's demand. Contracts for huge money are flying everywhere.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 12:20:27 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 01, 2025, 06:07:10 pmIn relation to which, Australia, having only a relatively small population heavily concentrated in coastal cities, has only a small number of coal-fired plants for electricity. I have commented previously that the present commercially-driven plan is to retire all by 2035 although some may hang on until nearer 2040. However, yesterday it was announced that one of these plants, scheduled for decommissioning in 2035, will in fact be shut down in 2029, simply for reasons of economics.It is odd that there should be claims that decisions on return on investment can be dismissed for some greater good. That sounds very soviet-planned economy rather than free enterprise. I allow, as I have stated before, that there may be some strategic reasons for retaining a capability in some technologies, recognising that is a State/taxpayer expense either at the construction or consumption phase.Way back in this thread I commented on various factors which would affect commercial decisions on energy generation in different countries. It was a pity to see subsequently people replying to comments about country A with examples of country B. Why not chuck in the Antarctic vs the Seychelles while you are at it? These are decisions to be considered for each country and location. For example European lowlands countries have no opportunities for pumped hydro, much like our deserts and other plains areas.I have also asked what proportion of electricity generation people expect for nuclear vs renewables and storage (needed for both). Only Someone and I have offered any answer to that so far as I recall. What mix is expected, why, and how will the rest of the system work?While cyclotron has put me on his purge list like a true Kommissar so will not read this (he promised), his comment about massive loss of arable land to solar farms is basically anti-renewables nonsense often seen. The actual percentage is small, is beneficial to grazing animals, and omits wind farms which have negligible effect. Practically all of the world's arable land loss has been to cities, because naturally we first settled in the best farming places then grew the constructions. Should we deconstruct?

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 01:36:54 am
content: I didn't realize thatCanada, the US, and the UK have been cooperating on nuclear regulatory matters. That should offer some efficiencies as the UK is ahead in some areas.It looks likeCanada has a good start on its plans for SMRs.It appears that Russia is nearing thecompletion of the BREST-OD-300 construction.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:07:36 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 02, 2025, 01:36:54 amThere are two meanings for the M in SMR, modular and medium. Even though they use the former in marketing, nothing much of it seems modular to me.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 09:47:58 am
content: Quote from: Marco on October 02, 2025, 07:07:36 am"Small medium reactors." That doesn't sound right, does it?

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 10:34:06 am
content: Given China is installing new thermal power as well as nuclear, I looked for data on what they were doing and planning.In 2024 they installed 54 GW of new thermal and 4 GW of new nuclear. Apparently they plan for 10% of capacity to be from nuclear by 2035. Also in 2024 they installed 356 GW of wind and solar, and 14 GW of hydro, which is not bad for one year considering the entire current world nuclear fleet has a capacity of about 400 GW.Total current renewable capacity as of Dec 2024 sits at 1.8 TW compared with 61 GW for nuclear. However "installed capacity" is generation before considering power factors, so that actual generation from wind and solar in 2024 was 1800 TWh, 3100 TWh renewables, compared with 444 TWh nuclear. Plans published to 2027 show about 90% or more wind and solar. I have no figures on storage capacity which will be necessary to make sense of the rate of renewables installation.It was also interesting to note that electricity accounts for 30% of final energy consumption in China, after rapid growth, compared with Australia, Europe and USA flatlining around 20-22%. Electrification of industry is a significant challenge.https://climateenergyfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/MONTHLY-CHINA-ENERGY-UPDATE-Feb-2025.pdfEdit:typo

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 10:46:42 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 02, 2025, 09:47:58 amSmall and Medium Reactors.https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-07.html

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 06:51:57 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 02, 2025, 10:34:06 amAhem: shouldn't nuclear be classified as thermal? After all, it's used to boil water, just like a coal- or natural gas-fired plant.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 07:08:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 01, 2025, 06:07:10 pmAnd that's exactly the thing: not much nuclear has been built not much anywhere in last 40-50 years or so!Nuclear fanboys: "We need to builda lotmore nuclear because it makes so much sense if, if, if, if, if..."Others: "Well then, why it isn't being built anywhere?"Nuclear fanboys: "China! Look at China! China is building a lot of super modern high tech reactors"Others: Checks and notices that nuclear % is tiny in China and stopped increasing a decade agoNuclear fanboys: "But! But! If! If! if but if if but but..."There are very valid reasons why nuclear energy is a technology of past, and why decision-makers are not too keen on building a lot more. They are not stupid. Nuclear makes some sense, but it is quirky and hard to understand. It is the opposite of the silver bullet solution nuclear fanboys think it is.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 08:33:28 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 02, 2025, 07:08:00 pmThat is too simplistic. During the 1980's there has been a very strong public demonising of nuclear power causing investments into nuclear energy to come to a halt. Nuclear has been politically incorrect for a long time. Only in the past 15 odd years people started to realise and really understand how devastating burning fossil fuels is for the environment and health. So nuclear is no longer was politically incorrect nowadays. But it is too little, too late. I wouldn't call nuclear power quirky or poorly understood; it is quite the opposite. The main problem is that the technology for nuclear power hasn't made the necessary progress for the truly large scale deployment we need right now. That ship has sailed. If you look through current government plans to build nuclear power, the reasons for doing so is to offset being reliant on intermittent renewables and imports. So the choice is more of a strategic kind rather than purely economic. Those last 5 percent are always the most expensive.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 08:52:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 02, 2025, 08:33:28 pmNo; that's not why nuclear came to a halt then, which it did.It was simple economics that put the kibosh on further nuclear power plants then.Anti-nuclear activists (I was one back then) like to credit themselves as the cause of that, but they're wrong. The industry simply saw that new atomic plants just wouldn't pencil out.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 09:16:56 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 02, 2025, 08:52:08 pmChernobyl, in 1986, was another factor taking the shine off nuclear energy. Fukushima in 2011 scared the Germans into dropping nuclear energy.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 09:38:40 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 02, 2025, 07:08:00 pmThis looks like trolling. They aren't stupid, agreed.Building is being done in far more places than China. There appears to be substaintial interest in building diversity into the energy sources based on the facts. There's also huge contracts being signed to power those AI farms of the future so demand seems to be there.I'm fanboy of solar, nuclear, hydro, thermal, and wind. They are all "technology of past".If we are only looking to pray to the new gods of energy generation, what are they?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 10:21:53 pm
content: Monocultures, agricultural or technical, are subject to surprises.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2025, 11:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 02, 2025, 07:08:00 pmCalling nuclear energy a "technology of the past" exists only in some imaginations. In reality, it remains one of the few reliable sources capable of delivering large-scale, continuous electricity. The fact that its adoption is sometimes limited or slow in certain regions reflects economic and political maneuvering and speculation rather than technological shortcomings.There are indeed speculative efforts to ensure that nuclear capabilities remain concentrated in a few “selected” countries, while others face artificial scarcity, high costs, and dependence.This is essentially a form of monopoly.Restrictions and pressure on nuclear deployment are a deliberate strategy to maintain control and profit from energy markets, reinforcing myths of “uneconomic,” “dangerous,” or “obsolete” nuclear power to justify inflated prices and limited access to cheap and stable nuclear power.I have noticed a pattern: groups of paid trolls, funded to promote the interests of mafia-like entities aiming to seize control and establish monopolies, consistently attack nuclear energy while actively praising “green” energy. Their behavior is predictable: they always support corrupt schemes and monopolistic practices, and they fiercely criticize anything that might threaten these structures. By these markers, their presence and intent are easy to identify.On one hand, some of these restrictions might be understandable: expanding nuclear energy brings cheap, reliable power, industrial growth, and advanced technology — but also, as an unavoidable side effect, increases the potential for nuclear weapons. That’s a real risk, of course.But let’s be frank: the obstacles we see are hardly technical or economic. They are political. The question of whether everyone should have access to affordable nuclear energy is genuinely complex — yet it is routinely reduced to absurd claims.To suggest that bloated financial pyramids and corrupt “green” energy schemes somehow prove nuclear power is uneconomic or unsafe is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, downright malicious. All these green schemes will soon collapse. Meanwhile, the fundamental issue of nuclear energy versus nuclear weapons remains.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 12:45:19 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 02, 2025, 06:51:57 pmQuite right. It was the term used the linked article principally for coal, presumably including a bit of gas given that was not itemised elsewhere.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 12:58:28 am
content: I and some others have put numbers on expected renewables vs fossil/nuclear penetration in the longer term. I have yet to see a nuclear proponent do likewise, leaving aside radiolistener's completely weird expectation that renewables will "collapse".I saw a recent single reference that put baseload demand at 5%. China currently has about 2% nuclear but plans to expand to at least 10% as a conscious minority of capacity. World wide sits currently at 9%. My guess in this thread was 10-15% while I think it was Someone (?) who posited up to 20%.Looking at it from the other end, it will be hard, expensive, to push renewables past 95% yet they are lowest cost into that region, so something in the region of the above figures for non-renewables seems reasonable.If you believe there will be a mix, what proportions to you expect? Saying "people are building some nuclear" is quite pointless. What is the planned mix and why?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 01:01:41 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 02, 2025, 09:16:56 pmYes, accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima were highly publicized and understandably raised concerns. But they do not change the fundamental technical and economic reality: modern reactors are designed with multiple layers of safety, and the probability of such catastrophic failures is extremely low, except in cases where a major incident might be deliberately orchestrated by state actors to create a pretext for sanctions or regulatory measures that would otherwise be difficult to implement. Public perception and political decisions often exaggerate these risks, overshadowing the fact that nuclear remains one of the most reliable sources of large-scale, cheap, clean and low-carbon electricity.It is also worth noting — whether one likes it or not — that Germany is not entirely free to make energy policy independently. Decisions to phase out nuclear power have been heavily influenced by external pressures, and Fukushima served largely as a convenient pretext rather than a sole cause. In general, high-profile incidents are often used politically to justify tighter controls or sweeping policy changes under the guise of "safety", similar to how governments historically have used manufactured crises and engineered threats to implement measures that would otherwise face public resistance.You may not fully appreciate how dramatically reactor safety, automated control, and monitoring systems have evolved since the Chernobyl accident. At that time, computers were rare, and their computational power would not even compare to the smartwatches we wear today. Modern nuclear plants employ multiple redundant layers of protection, real-time digital monitoring, advanced predictive algorithms, and automated shutdown systems. These improvements make today’s reactors far safer, with the ability to detect, respond to, and prevent potential anomalies long before they could develop into serious incidents.In short, comparing current nuclear technology to the reactors of the 1980s is fundamentally misleading: the engineering, operational protocols, and safety culture have all been revolutionized.It is important to note that the РБМК-1000 reactors were not unique to Chernobyl — several units of this type were, and in some cases still are, in operation at other plants. However, all of these reactors have undergone extensive modifications, and their safety systems have been completely overhauled. Control and protection mechanisms, emergency shutdown procedures, and automated monitoring have been modernized to a degree that makes the Chernobyl-type accident virtually impossible today. These upgrades include strengthened containment measures, improved neutron-absorbing control rods, redundant cooling systems, and continuous digital surveillance. In essence, while the reactor design may carry historical associations, the operational reality and engineering safeguards now in place are fundamentally different, rendering such catastrophic failures highly unlikely.It is worth noting that the same applies to the other reactors at Chernobyl: all of them were modernized, and a similar accident was virtually impossible. Nevertheless, they were decommissioned purely for political reasons under external coercion, despite the fact that they not only powered the plant itself but also supplied a significant portion of electricity to the grid. Following the politically motivated, externally imposed decision to shut them down, the plant effectively became a net consumer of energy rather than a producer, turning from an asset into a burden.As I recall, the decision to decommission the reactors was made following assurances from Western countries that they would cover all the associated penalties, costs and expenses. However, from what I understand, these commitments were never fully honored, and compensation was provided only partially. That said, there was no technical or economic necessity to decommission the plant. It continued to operate safely and reliably after the accident, providing revenue and low-cost electricity. There was virtually no risk of a repeat incident.The example of Chernobyl clearly illustrates how speculative and exaggerated narratives about the alleged “uneconomic” and "danger" of operating nuclear plants are used. In reality, these narratives serve primarily to reduce the apparent profitability and efficiency of nuclear facilities by artificially decommissioning them prematurely and imposing restrictions on the construction of new plants.During the Chernobyl accident, I was located a few hundred kilometers away, right in the direction the radioactive cloud traveled. I personally knew many people who were involved in the cleanup operations and have understanding of what they endured — it was truly terrifying. That said, there is no need to exaggerate. In comparison, I'm sure - the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was far more severe. Today, people are being killed and subjected to unimaginable suffering in ongoing conflicts, which is far worse, yet receives comparatively little attention. No one want to stop it.In the context of the ongoing war, what happened at Chernobyl is relatively trivial. Of course it affected people’s lives at the time, but for those currently living in conflict zones, it is just a minor nuisance. I mention this from personal experience, having lived in the conflict zone for the past three years — compared to what I have seen and endured, what happened in Chernobyl is truly inconsequential.In Chernobyl, the only real threat was radiation — dangerous, but often greatly exaggerated. In a conflict zone, however, danger is everywhere: you can be killed not only by weapons, but simply because you decided to leave your shelter or tried to escape. You can count only on yourself, and trust is a luxury you cannot afford.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 04:19:23 am
content: When some try to frighten people with Chernobyl as if it should inspire dread, it’s hard not to smile.That reminded me of a day ago, I watched a video from Norway where people were preparing for wartime survival — buying kits with canned food, water pouches, and a flashlight with a radio to follow government instructions… When I watch it I couldn’t help but laughIt really highlights how disconnected people can be from reality, terrified by the frightening stories they see on TV.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 07:56:27 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 03, 2025, 01:01:41 amEven with the modernization the RMBK-1000 reactors still have some serious safety issue that are hard or impossible to fix. They still lack a good containment and a broken pressure tube can cause issues with a posive void coefficient. They mainly fixed the simple an cheap parts (operating procedures, control rod tips and control electronics). A full fix is essentially impossible - the design with many pressure tubes is problematic from the strart. It is more economic problems that forced Russia to continue using the old reactors and not accept that they are flawed from the start.Similarly the economics is set before safety with reactors in Belgium that were (maybe still are ?) operated with cracks in the reactor pressure vessel. Safty regulation for just a steam boiler require a immediate shut down for safety concerns. They were more cautious with steam locomotives.So the problem with safty behind economics is not just a Russian issue. Even the US did not immediately shut down there BWRs after the Fukushima accident uncovered design flaws - they did the upgrades / patch up over many years, even though the safty concepts called for immediate action.AFAIK the other reactor at Chernobyl were not really fixed (except for changes in the procedures). A good part why they were shut down is the high radiation level around the reactor that makes it hard to keep the workers below sensible exposure.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 08:18:34 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 03, 2025, 01:01:41 amThere was already a plan to phase out nuclear before Fukushima. It was just paused with a change in Government. Part of the issue was also the waste disposal (it slowly settled in that the Gorleben would not work). External pressure was more to continue running the reactors, e.g. from France so they could make money from new fuel and services.The decision to shut down the reactors in Germany after the Fukushima accidents was from internal public pressure.Even the plant operators were not that unhappy, as they got quite some compensation. With increasing renewables in the grid and too few power lines the nuclear power plants were not that economic anyway. They would have needed some upgrades anyway, as they where still behind from the earlier plan to phase out.In hindside the political out - in - out plans where not good. A clean plan either way would have been better. To a large part the German reactor where also quite safe.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 09:31:10 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 03, 2025, 07:56:27 amI am not familiar with the technical details, but from what I have heard from people with first-hand knowledge, the RBMK reactors were upgraded to the point where an accident of the Chernobyl type became essentially impossible. Unfortunately, I cannot provide specifics.As for the decommissioning of the plant, as I know, the operating staff were strongly opposed to it, which makes your argument about radiation levels less convincing. The entire process was surrounded by various scandals and corruption cases involving, among others, French companies and the EBRD — which, incidentally, also played an important role in channeling funds away from nuclear energy into questionable “green energy” schemes benefiting oligarchic structures. I also recently came across information suggesting that the same circles acquired an island in Europe in cooperation with the EU, with plans to develop so-called green energy projects there. If true, the local residents will soon experience firsthand how such schemes usually work.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 10:20:34 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 03, 2025, 07:56:27 amFrom what I have read, the safety concerns about the early BWR Mark I design were already raised back in the 1970. In the US, these reactors were gradually modernized with additional safety systems and containment improvements. In Japan, however, it seems they largely left the original design unchanged, despite reports warning that the Mark I containment had a very high probability of failing in a severe accident. That makes the situation at Fukushima look even more puzzling — it raises the question of why such reactors were built in that form in the first place, and why the known vulnerabilities were never properly addressed.It is also worth recalling that Japan had experienced serious nuclear safety lapses even before Fukushima. The 1999 Tokaimura accident, for example, was caused by workers bypassing basic procedures and pouring excessive amounts of uranium solution into a vessel not designed for such use, leading to a criticality incident. This was an almost absurd violation of safety fundamentals — something one would not expect in a country otherwise known for precision, discipline, and technological advancement. Seen in this context, the fact that such basic and preventable failures occurred well before Fukushima makes the overall picture of Japan’s nuclear safety culture appear rather unusual and raises questions.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 05:35:35 pm
content: Interesting report on Chernobyl:https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accidentNice sketches.New design rule: Don't use carbon as a moderator, it burns or crumbles when the reactor loses cooling water. Once the moderation ceases, the nuclear thing goes non-linear, rapidly.New operator rule: Don't turn off cooling waterRussia is still using Chernobyl style reactors with upgraded systems. They plan to replace the reactors when the economic situation improves.Just in the last day, Ukraine has restored power TO the Chernobyl reactors following air strikes by Russia.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 03, 2025, 11:54:22 pm
content: There's been a good deal of talk in the thread about the high cost and failures of building nuclear power. As I was reading the news today I noticed there's news of similar failures in other energy generation types. They areshuttering the 2.2 billion dollar Ivanpah Solar Power Facility. It doesn't appear that they are planning to tear it down so I guess it will just have to decompose in situ. The article mentions that they estimate that 6k birds died a year in what apparently is a KFC in the sky.This follows the failure of the billion dollar (mostly paid for by the government) Cresent Dunes project. Though it may still be hoping along after being bought by another company.That made me curious if only nuclear energy faced the challenges of funding.Based on this page, that's a big fat "nope".Solar and nuclear aren't alone, there's plenty of failed wind projects. Some areas of the US are also on a mission to restore watersheds to their original flows.Hydropresents its own dangers.The continued investment in renewables, nuclear, and storage systems will be critical for the US to meet what looks like some spectacular demands from technology companies. I think we also need to have huge investments in our grid. But, in my opinion,news like thisdoesn't bode well for improvements when unchecked greed is at work.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 12:03:22 am
content: Quote from: rstofer on October 03, 2025, 05:35:35 pmTwo things:1. Aren't the Chernobyl reactors being maintained only for safety reasons, not for power generation?2. I'm pretty sure that Russia is taking care to avoid hitting nuclear power plants in Ukraine.And no, I'm not being ironic or snarky; I'm serious.Why would they want to intentionally contaminate territory that they might eventually be taking?Reminds me of all the bullshit reported in the "Western" press about how the Russians were shelling the nuke plant at Zaporizhzhia which they, not the Ukrainians, control. Sheer Russophobic propaganda.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 12:09:48 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 03, 2025, 11:54:22 pmThis quote from that article says a lot about that plant:QuoteJust because a project is touted as being "green" and "renewable" doesn't mean it's a good project.And I am very much in favor of renewable green projects--just so long as they make sense, work as planned and aren't huge financial boondoggles. (Which is why I'm opposed to California's totally botched HSR project, BTW, even though I love trains and would very much like to see a high-speed link between the state's two major population centers--which the rest of the world, including China, has actually figured out how to do reasonably well.)

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 12:12:21 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 03, 2025, 11:54:22 pmSolarthermal, which of course you completely didn't intentionally want readers (who don't check the links/references) confuse with solar photovoltaic.Dams are an interesting one as the methodologies to count "human safety" don't include the avoided fatalities of flood control/mitigation, despite actively looking for such analysis I've not noticed it. Environmentally dams are massive local physical effects just like mining, so comparable there and need measures of land area disrupted per unit of energy output.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:02:45 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 12:03:22 am1. I believe rstofer was in error when he mentioned Chernobyl. It was in fact Zaporizhzhia which had in recent days lost power, being reported by other sources than "Western" press, as well as reported by the IAEA itself.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/30/ukraines-zelenskyy-says-situation-critical-at-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-planthttps://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-318-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine2. In case you weren't aware, a drone blew a hole in the new safe confinement shelter over Chernobyl power plant. Again, news direct from the IAEA and the Chernobyl NPP website itself.https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-278-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukrainehttps://web.archive.org/web/20250313003829/https://www.chnpp.gov.ua/en/

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:25:38 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on October 04, 2025, 03:02:45 amThe origin of the drone is unclear in that article (from February of this year):QuoteI'm not going to pursue this any farther as I just don't have enough good information here to even make a guess as to what actually happened at Chernobyl. There's enough rampant speculation (not to mention outright propaganda) as it is.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:34:06 am
content: Regarding solar thermal, I recall back in 1998 attending a demonstration of an ammonia cycle system.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X00000748A mining company was interested in its potential for remote sites.It was not pursued at the time, and today I expect it would fall foul of exactly the same thing which the Ivanpah solar thermal did; photovoltaics have overtaken them. As the report notes and the management company for Ivanpah said,Quote

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:40:56 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 12:03:22 amAre you talking about the same Russia that threatened to use tactical nukes on the battlefield in that territory?https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-tactical-nuclear-weapons-counteroffensive-2022-crimea-sergei-surovikin-2052920?utm_source=chatgpt.com

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:58:00 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 03:25:38 amThe origin of the drone may be unclear, however there should be no speculation about the purpose of a drone carrying an explosive payload.IAEA are also not in the business of propaganda.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 03:59:46 am
content: Quote from: vad on October 04, 2025, 03:40:56 am1.Newsweekand theNew York Timesare both basically propaganda outlets, apart from whatever virtue they may have as news organizations.2. That article casts doubt on its own conclusions:QuoteYes, Russia has made threats about using nuclear weapons, but they haven't done so, so far. That simply shows the seriousness of their positionvis a visUkraine, NATO, etc.This is certainly one situation where one ought to be aware of the "fog of war".

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:00:31 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 04, 2025, 12:12:21 amLol, there goes good ol' stampy foot, but but but my spreadsheet..You make your arguments and position so easy to be ignored. It's a strawman that I am conflating or trying to confuse anything. It seems PV is your baby and you don't want anyone saying its ugly or even its cousin because reasons and a spreadsheet.Have I mentioned that I am a fan of PV? I know I have. But that's irrelevant.It is also important for the any ecosystem to be diverse. I'm sure your spreadsheet has a number for the diversity and you have it all calculated.I'm sure the Wy-Kan-Ush-Pum people of the US north west would love to know you've inscribed them with tekel, and provided a price tag on their heads and culture. Got that cost for restoration of their dependent estuaries and watershed as a number your spreadsheet. I'm sure the'd want to know about how the destruction of their culture is important for flood control. The fish be damned too I guess. Purely for morbid curiosity, what is the value you put on them?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:03:54 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on October 04, 2025, 03:58:00 amWrong.They were virtually apolitical and credible up until the last few years, when they became politicized and weaponized, both regarding Russia as well as Iran.The agency was an honest broker when it was headed by Mohamed ElBaradei. Since then they've lost most of their credibility in many peoples' estimation.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:10:27 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 03, 2025, 09:31:10 amChernobyl had a positive void coefficient of 4-5β. Post-accident RBMK-1000 reactors were modified to have a void coefficient of under 1β (still positive).In other words, loss of coolant in the RBMK-1000 can still cause core radioactivity to increase with increasing coolant loss. This is an inherent design flaw which necessitated protective systems to prevent such a thing from occurring.https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTcd/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdfIf the protective systems fail, then the lower void coefficient might give more time than Chernobyl for humans to respond manually, though, we know how fallible humans can be.Also, the upgraded RBMK-1000s still don't have a containment building....the reactor roof is no different to an industrial factory tin roof.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:14:22 am
content: Well, all I can tell you is that I don't want any of that stuff--nukes--within 500 miles of where I live.And I think many (most?) people where I live would agree with me.200 miles would be my preferred distance from a coal-fired power plant.Solar, wind farms, dams I can live with (though I'm really no fan of dams).

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:15:27 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 04:03:54 amIf you really meant "in many people's" estimation, you should've been confident enough to provide a source stating as such.Otherwise I presume you meant, inyourestimation.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:21:55 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 03:59:46 amI’m confused. By your own admission, the so-called “propaganda” outlet Newsweek reported the truth that Russia did make such threats. That sounds more like classic Orwellian doublethink: “war is peace”, “ignorance is strength”, and in your case, “truth is propaganda”.And what better way to demonstrate the seriousness of your position than by shelling a nuclear power plant building with a small round that can’t do much damage, just to prove the seriousness of talking heads like four-star generals and a former president of Russia?Edit: You probably don’t know this, but Soviet industrial infrastructure, such as power plant buildings, was built to withstand a nuclear blast. An artillery shell or a drone carrying a small explosive cannot do much damage to the building, let alone the equipment inside it.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:26:11 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 04, 2025, 04:00:31 am"stampy foot" just because I'm calling out your misleading cherry picking propaganda for what it is?I'm not pushing any spreadsheet, just referencing out to wider industry studies and projections which refute your claims. And pointing out the leading and forceful language you are (must be intentionally) using, rather than neutral or plain language. Keep pushing crap and you'll keep getting push back.Point to an example of traditional land owners affected by hydro, sure thats a thing, but act as if it is something exclusive to hydro.... I'll point out comparable examples of mining (including precious uranium) ignoring traditional land owners wishes. So not industry or technology specific. Have some wider studies or measures? bring them on, not emotional crap from one sided extremes.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:28:57 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on October 04, 2025, 03:58:00 amAgreed, despite being industry adjacent the figures and claims they put out hold up to scrutiny (from my experience of cross checking things).

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:52:39 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 04, 2025, 04:28:57 amIt's not a matter of being "industry-adjacent" or not; that's a feature of US regulatory agencies like the NRC (and perhaps of similar agencies elsewhere in the world).No, in the case of the IAEA it's a matter of political alignment (there's that politics again--just can't avoid it! it's part of life in the 21st century). That agency, once a fair arbiter of who was allowed to do what with regard to nuclear technology, both civilian and military, has become politicized and now aligns with the "Washington consensus", which is that Russia and Iran are the malefactors of the world (let's don't forget North Korea), and therefore the full force of that agency's pressure must be brought to bear on those bad actors.Let's face it: the reality is that states are aware that the way to protect themselves from attack is to become nuclear-armed. There's nothing about this that can be argued against from arealpolitikviewpoint: if you possess nukes, your neighbors are not going to fuck with you. So naturally states will want to acquire these weapons. This is a rational decision, never mind the morality.Now you can deplore this reality, as I do: my view of a rational, peaceful world is definitely not one with bristling with nukes, the ultimate Weapons of Mass Destruction. And as a US citizen I realize that I'm living in the only country that has ever unleashed these horrible weapons on others. One would hope that those despicable events would be the last ones that ever occurred. But in the increasingly warlike milieu that we find ourselves in, WWIII seems more and more likely every day.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 04:56:50 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 04, 2025, 04:26:11 amBwhahahahahahah, stamp that foot.Refute my claims, here they are:The energy industry has many failed projects of most all energy sources.Financing cost of projects is causing a lot of project failures and bankruptcies.The US grid needs modernization and overhaul.A diverse energy supply system is a good energy supply ecosystem.I've argued to reduce and/or eliminate if possible coal and natural gas energy production.I provided an example for hydro and its impacts. You wanted to put a number on it. If you point out the mines and their impact, I'd agree. I bet your example of mines heavily weighs on you. The examples of horrible things such as the children mining cobalt in the Congo keep you up at night.Look at you stamp your foot with "bring them on"; spoiling for a fight eh? You chose poorly, you lose. I'd bet you're a real gem in person.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 05:04:07 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 04, 2025, 04:56:50 amYou've spent prior posts avoiding saying or acknowledging most of that, so quoted here for posterity.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 05:12:01 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 04, 2025, 04:56:50 amThis is where your fake sincerity (amongst more emotive rubbish) falls apart:Quote from: Someone on October 04, 2025, 12:12:21 amRight there in the opening, I said from the beginning that dams have comparable impacts physically to those of mining but did not know of any reasonable comparisons.Quote from: Cyclotron on October 04, 2025, 04:56:50 amExcept you didn't, and chose to go off on emotional arguments about a specific example of hydro... rather than agreeing that mines also do similar things which is what I said.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 05:38:17 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 04, 2025, 05:12:01 amOh how fragile you are. Why do I need to state my agreement? I didn't make an argument against that position (strawman).Did you state your agreement with any of the things I said? Do I get to make the same dumb assumptions since you didn't state your agreement?If you can't figure it out, maybe I'll say it again. Your incessant need to itemize in some spreadsheet and at the end point to some number and in a call yourself superior is childish. It's also surreal, that you call my criticisms of your numbephilia "emotional garbage" and immediately call up mines and their comparable "emotional garbage." if you feel those impacts are "emotional garbage" assign them a zero in your spreadsheet and move on. Nobody cares.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 06:31:22 am
content: And for a bit of novelty;(his other videos are well worth watching)

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2025, 07:25:35 am
content: What is shared as a “reconstruction” with dramatic music — showing a printer endlessly spitting warnings of worsening conditions, allegedly from the SKALA computer at Chernobyl — is typical fearmongering. In reality, the reactor had control panels with proper indicators and operating systems, nothing like the continuously printing messages occurred. Up until the explosion, the staff simply did not notice that certain parameters were outside expected ranges. Even immediately after the accident, it was not entirely clear to the operators what had happened: they could tell an accident occurred, but the control panels did not provide a full picture, and they attempted to stabilize the reactor. The core issue was that monitoring and diagnostic systems of that time were not sufficiently advanced to give a comprehensive view of the situation. This is what led to misunderstandings and mistakes, not some ominous messages from a printer.Here is a video featuring an interview at Chernobyl NPP recorded in 1980, prior to the incident. You can observe the control panels in the background and how they were organized at the time.There is a lot of speculation surrounding the accident, but in reality, nothing particularly extraordinary occurred beyond the building explosion, fire, and elevated radiation levels. There were no mutants or anomalies as imagined in fictional accounts like the Strugatsky stories or the STALKER game — these are purely myths.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 04:25:20 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 04, 2025, 07:25:35 amIn reality, there was a printer.If there was no printer, how did the plant log operational data?Are you saying that humans documented all instrument readings manually by pencil and paper? That is ridiculous.Let me be clear. I am definitely NOT saying that the human operators were only responding to printer messages. Of course they were observing the panels and indicators.And if that was your interpretation of the video, then your interpretation is also incorrect.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 06:02:15 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 04, 2025, 07:25:35 amSinceRoadside Picnicwas written in 1972 and had nothing to do with nuclear power, I fail to see the connection. While I've read people's claims that the debris from the alien visitation in the book was a metaphor for nuclear waste, I'm not aware that the Strugatskys ever intended that interpretation. Anyway, it's a great book, and Tarkovsky's film "Stalker" (an adaptation ofPicnic), while challenging, is worth watching.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 09:58:23 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 04:14:22 amAnd yet you are very pleased indeed to have a reliable supply of electricity all the way to your home.Quote from: Analog Kid on October 04, 2025, 04:14:22 amWould you be willing to live with an intermittent electrical supply?How nice it would be if we could all avoid the inconvenience of having unwanted civil infrastructure within 200 miles of our home.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 08:46:51 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 05, 2025, 09:58:23 amY'know, your objections sound very much like what we "alternative energy" proponents, as we were called back in the 1980s, were met with from the power producers: something along the lines of "so you'd prefer to freeze in the dark, is that it?".It was bullshit back then, and it's bullshit today.Yes, of course I much prefer a constant source of electricity. Who doesn't?But it doesn't have to come at the cost of those things I object to above. We could:Reduce our dependence on electricity by building structures that are at least "sun-tempered", if not passively solar heated (and cooled);Reduce our dependence on electricity by reining in energy hogs like bitcoin miners and out-of-control "AI" data centers;Reduce our dependence on electricity by stopping the headlong rush towards cellular electric transportation instead of more efficient schemes like electrically-powered public transportation;Most importantly:reduce our population.Of course, nobody is asking me about any of this, so my guess is, pretty much none of the above are going to happen. We're going to continue to pursue extremely stupid energy policies.And regarding that last one, pushing that'll get you branded a Nazi eugenicist, so pretty close to zero chance of that heppening. Of course, it will happen one way or the other, by means of war, famine or catastrophic global climate change.But as I say, other than that, everything's just peachy.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 09:07:30 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 05, 2025, 08:46:51 pmSummarizing:If only they would do what you're the expert on everything would be great.If only the rest of the people would given up their hopes and dreams so you can be happy.And then this gem:Most importantly:reduce our population.Stand-by your position and show us the way. Take one for the team? <- I jest; and I think its funny as hell.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 09:16:57 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 05, 2025, 09:07:30 pmThen perhaps AK supports the current regime's reduction in population, by deporting people? Oh perhaps not, going by his other posts, which I find odd.In reality, a shrinking population is not good for the economy. The ideal scenario, is a stable population.Anyway, having as wider range of energy sources on the grid is always a good idea and it should of course include nuclear energy.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 09:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 05, 2025, 09:07:30 pmFair point, but I'll only say this:Population reduction could be accomplished without killing a single living person. (It would be a process over time, not a sudden event.)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 10:10:25 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 05, 2025, 09:27:07 pmOh so a little Sunday evening genocide and eugenics. We get it. I guess you will be the arbiter on who gets to have children and who doesn't.And only start murdering millions of people when those people start fighting back. If only they would see, that you are actually the good guy...I'm so sick of people like you.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 10:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 05, 2025, 10:10:25 pmThat's a total and malicious mischaracterization of what a humane population-reduction program would be like.You apparently have a glaring reading comprehension problem there; you missed where I wrote "without killing a single living person". I think selective reading is your superpower.Think more along the lines of China's one-child policy, but without that project's mistakes. No eugenics. No murder. Not even any abortion needed.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 10:53:59 pm
content: Hmmmm..... Outside of oppressive regimes like China, I think the idea of the state deciding on how many children you can have would be seen as outrageous overreach.At first glance it seems tempting, especially if you don't want kids yourself, but it doesn't take much thought to see all the problems with it.For what it is worth, I agree with you that things would be much better if there were fewer of us. I just don't see any realistic way of making that happen. I also would not be confident in the ethics of such a policy.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 11:08:48 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 05, 2025, 10:53:59 pmTo your first point, I don't see any way either. I'm certainly no expert on population dynamics and all its political, social and economic ramifications.It would definitely take government policies, possibly even coercive ones. (Think paying taxes.)To your second point, you may be right. However, the time may come when the urgency of reducing our population outweighs the ethics, if it becomes a matter of survival. And if that happens, we'll be in an even tighter vise than we are now.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 05, 2025, 11:40:25 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 05, 2025, 10:53:59 pmA diverse and advancing set of energy solutions can support infinite population (infinite in so much as our concept of it). The problem is that folks tend to limit the human race to Earth's resources and with appropriate capacity to manage energy we are not limited to such boundaries.Population control happens naturally and I for one think that it probably should remain that way. As you allude to, there's no solution that puts some person(s) in charge of deciding that is likely to not have severe complications.Instead of complaining about the use or uses of energy and deciding to slide down the spiral to extinction, turn our attention to study and use of tools (AI included) to find novel and better ways of harnessing the natural world and the energy it can provide. Move out of Earth and go infect the rest of the universe.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:24:17 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 05, 2025, 11:40:25 pmOh, puleeze; spare me the sci-fi fanboi and Randian uber-libertarian masturbatory fantasies of infinitude.Those people believe, as you seem to, that the Earth is an infinite source/sink for resources and waste products.And hey, if it ever gets depeleted or over-polluted, we'll just rocket ourselves somewhere out in space and plunder that resource!Assuming we don't go that route, at some point we're going to start bumping up against what they used to call "the limits to growth".One more thing I wanted to mention about population control: turns out that successful social-justice movements only make the problem worse. Why? Because as more and more people demand--rightfully--decent living conditions, medical care, nutrition, employment, all that good stuff--we're only going to need more and more energy and infrastructure to provide those things.And no, those things are not infinite. No matter how humongous the ocean appears to you when you stand on the shore and look out on it.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:50:54 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 06, 2025, 12:24:17 amI expect no more from you based on your preference for Orwellian control and contraceptives. In case you weren't aware, you might be on the side of some strange bedfellows being in favor of controlling peoples' reproduction.Having progeny would likely change you in positive ways. Of course that might not affect you if you're old lonely and without progeny of your own.The ability for the Earth to sustain us will end. Excuse the rest of us while we work on that and other things to for the future.And back to ignoring your posts.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 01:11:44 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 06, 2025, 12:50:54 amIf we keep going the way we're going, then yeah.I agree with you on that one.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 01:33:38 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 06, 2025, 12:24:17 amYour argument assumes that scarcity of physical resources is the core problem. In reality, modern civilization already produces far more food, energy, and infrastructure capacity than would be needed for every human being on the planet to live in comfort and dignity. What prevents that from happening is not physics — it’s psychology and social dynamics.Experiments such as John Calhoun’s “Universe 25” and theStanford prison experimentclearly illustrate that even in an environment of abundance and security, societies can collapse from within due to pathological behavior, domination instincts, and loss of meaning. When individuals or groups begin to monopolize resources, devalue others, or create artificial hierarchies, the result is not balance, but decay.So the real challenge is not to restrict humanity under the pretext of “limits to growth”, but to understand and overcome the psychological and structural flaws that make some people turn abundance into oppression.What we observe today — depopulation programs, restrictions on fertility, genocide, forced promotion of corrupt schemes under the guise of “green energy”, simultaneous suppression of nuclear power that could reliably provide abundant, clean, and affordable electricity, the resurgence of extremist ideologies — all of this reflects the same psychological dynamics. It is the result of certain groups seizing resources and attempting to dominate, at the expense of others. This is not a problem of scarcity, it is a problem of behavior, power, and social pathology.All of these programs ultimately lead to the destabilization and destruction of humanity, rather than to its preservation or long-term stability.The problem is fundamental: if anyone is given unlimited monopoly, control and power over others, they will sooner or later use it for destructive or harmful purposes, as demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment. On the other hand, stabilizing a system to prevent any individual or group from seizing control and dominating others is a highly complex and challenging task.All these attempts to convince others that some people are more entitled than others resemble a deranged ape attacking its own reflection in a mirror — unable to recognize itself, and destroying what it perceives as an enemy. With every headbutt against the mirror, the ape only breaks its own forehead — yet it fails to realize this, believing instead that the enemy in the reflection has struck back. That is the true problem of the modern world — not the lack of resources.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 03:04:41 am
content: Whenever someone claims that the planet is running out of resources, I’m reminded of George Carlin’s words:The planet is fine — it’s the people who are f***ed. We’re going away.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 06:44:25 am
content: quite! we all just think of ourselves in this generation and so long as we will get by until we die we don't want change as that is safer, change is risky. Apparently reducing birth rates even slightly causes massive problems much faster than you would think. Basically young people look after the old, if there are not enough to do that and keep society moving it all goes wrong. People don't like change and people always demand from their governments what cannot be realistically granted. To do anything you need everyone to be intelligent enough and willing to pull together for the common good. As soon as a certain level of living standard is achieved people just take the "I'm all right Jack" attitude.Realistically all of the science fiction stories are just science fiction! I'm willing to wager that even if we put the economics aside there is not even the fuel on this planet to get us all off it before the end and space travel is slow.We are just another insignificant piece of the universe like every other where this unorthodox thing called life just happened for what is a split second in the universes history, less time than someone catching a cold and getting rid of it if you want to equate the virus to life on planet person.The only human civilization that would survive this planet or prolong it's resources would be small, very intelligent, very integrated and with no money, which is not possible, people just don't work like that.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 06:54:12 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 05, 2025, 10:17:52 pmmod: Please ban this clown.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 07:02:51 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 06, 2025, 06:54:12 amWell, now I really feel like I've earned my badge.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 07:12:49 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 06, 2025, 01:11:44 amWell if we carry on the way we're currently going, then we are doomed, but for the opposite reason as you think.The problem we currently have is too lower birth rates, not overpopulation. Most of the world is at subreplacement birth rates, barring sub-Saharan Africa, which is the least advanced part of the world. If we carry on like this, then civilisation will be gone within a few generations. This will happen long before the old die off. At first there will be economic problems of too fewer workers to pay for pensions and care for the elderly. Then there will be political instability and possibly war, before civilisational collapse. It's unlikely to result in the end of the human race, but a return to a more primtive society.What we need is a stable population, hence the need to have more, not fewer children, in most of the world. Then we don't have the problem of needing increasingly more resources, or the end of civilisation. Indeed, as technology improves, then we can use fewer resources, for the same number of people. this has already happened, with more energy efficient lightying, factories, household appliances and transport. This isn't going to happen by switching over to renewables and ditching everything else.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 07:42:29 am
content: Quote from: Simon on October 06, 2025, 06:44:25 amThat’s not quite true. In fact, nuclear energy is the one technology that could sustain humanity with sufficient electricity for an essentially unlimited time — even in the absence of sunlight or if the planet were shrouded in clouds or dust. No other energy source offers such independence from environmental conditions. With advanced fuel cycles, including breeder and thorium reactors, the available nuclear fuel on Earth could last for many thousands of years, making it the only truly long-term foundation for civilization-scale energy.In principle, nuclear power provides such an immense and compact source of energy that, on long enough timescales, it could even allow humanity to sustain life independently of the Sun itself. With sufficient control over propulsion and resource cycles, Earth — or a large artificial habitat — could theoretically maintain its biosphere while drifting through interstellar space, slowly traveling toward another star long after the Sun has died.Quote from: Simon on October 06, 2025, 06:44:25 amThe idea that humanity could survive longer by reducing itself to a small, hyper-intelligent and tightly integrated group is fundamentally flawed.In nature and in complex systems, resilience comes from diversity, redundancy, and scale — not from reduction!A civilization reduced to a few thousand or even a few million “selected” individuals would be far more vulnerable to any random catastrophe — whether a meteor strike, a natural pandemic, or a single psychopath obsessed with depopulation and Nazi ideology with a nuclear or DNA/RNA weapon.True sustainability is achieved not by shrinking humanity, but by evolving its mindset and systems so that abundance and cooperation replace fear and control.You seem to have misunderstood my earlier point. Even if every human being were provided with free food, housing, and complete safety — and we already produce far more than enough of all these things to sustain everyone on Earth — humanity would not continue developing indefinitely. It would still eventually decline and disappears. That is simply the natural dynamic of complex systems in nature.Again: The planet is fine — it’s the people who are f***ed. We’re going away.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 08:04:06 am
content: You’ve probably heard the idea that humanity is now at the peak of its development. What this really means is that further growth is no longer possible — the system has reached its limits. From here, the trajectory naturally bends toward decline, regardless of how well we manage to prevent wars, hunger, or suffering. Even in peace and comfort, complex systems eventually reach a point of bifurcation, where they either transform into something entirely new — or collapse.And we are already at that point of bifurcation!

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 10:06:48 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 06, 2025, 08:04:06 amI think that is a totally groundless assertion. Is there some evidence we can read to support that claim?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 10:26:51 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on October 06, 2025, 10:06:48 amIt’s not a matter of belief, but of observing systemic patterns. Every complex system — biological, ecological, technological, or social — follows the same fundamental dynamics: exponential growth, saturation, instability, and transition.Human civilization shows the same symptoms described by researchers like Joseph Tainter in "The Collapse of Complex Societies", Ilya Prigogine in "Order Out of Chaos", and others who studied non-linear systems.The evidence isn’t in one single “paper”, but in the convergence of trends: ecological strain, social polarization, loss of institutional trust, and technological overcomplexity — all hallmarks of a system approaching a bifurcation point.Humanity has never before faced a transformation of this scale. For the first time in its history, every aspect of civilization — technological, ecological, psychological, and moral — is converging toward a single global test. It is entirely possible that, within a relatively short time, there will be no “humans” as we know them today. Either we will disappear, or we will undergo a qualitative leap — evolving into something fundamentally different.But one thing is certain: humanity, in its current form that has persisted for hundreds of thousands of years, will not continue unchanged. And we are the generation that will witness this transition.It is important to emphasize that this is not a matter of speculation or science fiction.These conclusions follow directly from the mathematical dynamics of complex systems.Growth, saturation, instability, and bifurcation are predictable outcomes when systems reach certain thresholds, whether in ecology, technology, or social organization. The trajectory we are observing in human civilization aligns precisely with these well-understood systemic patterns.In a sense, what humanity faces in the near future can be seen as a kind of ultimate test — a “final assessment” of the systems we have built over millennia, our social structures, and our collective behavior. This is not meant in a mystical or moralistic sense, but as a systemic evaluation: complex systems, once pushed to their limits, naturally expose weaknesses, inefficiencies, and vulnerabilities. The convergence of ecological pressures, technological complexity, and social instability acts as a stress test on a global scale. How we respond — through adaptation, innovation, and governance — will determine whether civilization undergoes a transformation, collapses, or finds a new equilibrium.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 10:52:39 am
content: Societies are not well predictable. People don't follow math modells very well. Things are different from the roman empire. I agree that there are signs for some disruption and trouble. Running out of cheap oil and the climate change are making things more complicated. How it turns out is still not clear, but chances are that some countries will suffer, may be even collapse, but this may not effect other or a majority.A disruption in socienty is a good reason not to build nuclear power plants. It is just very difficult to set aside the money to care for the waste and desmanteling of the plant in some 40 to 50 years. This may work under very stable conditions, but not with trouble on the horizon. Bllions or dollars set aside may loose value in a collapse.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 11:09:16 am
content: You are correct that social systems are inherently less predictable than mathematical models, and disruptions may initially appear localized. However, modern civilization is globally interconnected in ways that ancient societies were not. Supply chains, energy networks, climate systems, financial markets, and technology create a web where even localized crises can cascade rapidly, affecting multiple countries simultaneously.Regarding nuclear energy, while long-term investment in waste management and decommissioning is indeed challenging, this is exactly why nuclear power remains a strategic asset. A stable, high-density, low-emission energy source provides resilience against multiple stressors — energy scarcity, climate shocks, and systemic disruptions. Dismissing nuclear power on the assumption that trouble will be limited to certain regions overlooks the systemic interdependence that defines the modern world.In short, even if some regions appear insulated initially, the global scale of interconnection means that crises rarely remain local, and investments in robust energy infrastructure are more important than ever to sustain civilization through periods of disruption.Moreover, I'm sure - countries that have abandoned nuclear power face a very high risk of systemic collapse. Without access to reliable, high-density energy, they are particularly vulnerable to rapidly escalating energy crises. Investments in overhyped and heavily subsidized “green” technologies, while politically appealing, can become a heavy economic burden, further undermining resilience and dragging the economy down in the face of mounting energy and resource pressures.Assuming that some countries will remain untouched by global crises is like believing you can stay dry during a flood by standing on one rooftop while the entire city is underwater. Even if your immediate surroundings appear safe, the interconnected nature of modern systems — energy grids, trade networks, financial markets, and climate — means that shocks in one area quickly propagate everywhere. No country exists in isolation, and hoping to “wait it out” ignores the cascading dynamics inherent in a globally interdependent civilization.And I think this is precisely why Europe has already begun preparing for the large-scale world-wide war conflict in the near future. While there is still a prevailing belief that the situation can be managed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the dynamics have already slipped beyond full control. The scale and momentum of the challenges — from energy crises to social and geopolitical instability — suggest that preventing the approaching chaos may no longer be possible.As far as I understand, behind the scenes there are ongoing discussions about where the fault lines will emerge and which alliances will form, effectively determining which groups or nations will find themselves on opposing sides of the war conflict. And it appears likely that, this time, we may witness a broader use of nuclear weapons, the consequences of which would inevitably affect multiple countries, leaving virtually no region untouched.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:16:42 pm
content: The problem is not localized disruptions the problem is the possibilty for a major disruption in the economy.It is not about investments in the waste disposal, it is about the need to set aside a significant amount of money (maybe some $1 billion for a bigger power plant) for a distant future (some 20-50 years) to do the required clean up and waste handling. At a very minimum the wast facitly should be ready before new reactors are started, even though the new reactor would not need them for the next 20-40 years. Currently there is already quite some waste that is cooled down sufficiently - so no more excuse to build reactors before a waste site.Not waiting a few decades before the waste is brought under ground or the reactor after shunt down disassembled would make things quite a bit more expensive. Waiting with the extra expenses is not just the normal greed, but makes some sense. The problem is however that there is no good way to set aside that money and make sure it is available under all circumstances. Especially after a major disruption it would be extra hard for the state to pay for the clean up of an old reactor and dispose the old waste.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:17:53 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 06, 2025, 10:52:39 amI agree. Currently there is a global economy and exchange of information as never has been before. If you look at past societies, a lot of knowledge got lost because information wasn't widely shared. The Egyptians for example already used diamond core drills to make perfectly round holes in granite. The Romans used concrete. It took millennia before these where re-invented.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:25:23 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 06, 2025, 07:12:49 amI don't think I got through to AK I'm not surprised. The number of existential threats to humanity is numerous. But ignorance is bliss. Hence, going back to ignoring their posts.Our ability to navigate the Great Filter, if it exists, whether we've passed it or if it's still ahead of us, remains to be seen.Spending resources and efforts to harness the natural world is certainly part of the continuation of the species. I wouldn't predict that any significant number of humans born on the planet will ever leave it. However, unless you are a complete misanthrope, the desire or longing for future generations to reach out and explore beyond our planet and beyond our solar system is a worthwhile endeavor.The only two forms of energy generation to leave the planet are nuclear and solar. Solar is spectacular within the solar system, but it is effectively limited to about the orbit of Mars. Low-gravity manufacturing of solar energy components is proposed to have benefits in efficiency, cost, and density.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 12:34:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 06, 2025, 12:17:53 pmWestern democracies are supposed to endure and prosper because of this.If you look at the failings of every other civilization, they had a thigh control over who is supposed to have what info, and they are failing over this paradigm. The russian troops two year ago started digging tranches near the Chornobyl nuclear power plant. They didn't learn what happened, they didn't know where they were, they weren't informed about the dangers of it. Something that happened less than 40 years ago, they had no idea. Information is verboten.That's why you cannot trust those regimes with power, and that's why they are a "monkey with a grenade".

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 01:35:02 pm
content: You can find videos of a person who entered the Chernobyl reactor inside, despite the extremely high radiation levels that still persist there. He did it to check what was really happening inside — and, apparently, he’s still alive and in good health.you probably don't realize what real war is... It is far more bad thing than radiation...The primary danger comes not so much from the ambient radiation itself, but from tiny highly radioactive particles that can be inhaled or ingested. Someone might be surprised, but the main source of such radioactive particles in the atmosphere is not nuclear reactors or the Chernobyl disaster, but coal-fired power plants. In fact, radiation from burning coal is one of the leading causes of lung cancer worldwide.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 06, 2025, 11:08:26 pm
content: RadiolistenerQuoteIt's a common fallacy that renewable energy is more heavily subsidized than other energy sources. It's not, that's nonsense.The current fake news is that wind turbines cannot be recycled and use tons of steel. However nobody mentions the billions of miles of oil and gas pipe and well casing rotting in the ground which is never recycled. In fact, wind turbines are a drop in the ocean compared to all the steel used for oil and gas.The newest global train wreck is zombie oil and gas wells. This is where millions and millions of the abandoned well casings rust out leaking oil and gas into the environment. Imagine a person being so utterly stupid they never realized that any condensate and ground water will eventually rust out all of the metal well casing. Once all the well casing is gone it's a clear path to the surface. Who do you think is going to subsidize the tens of trillions of dollars required to fix this little problem?.Don't get me wrong, I'm not against oil and gas. I'm against stupid people doing really stupid things without thinking about the consequences of their actions. Imagine the consequences of hundreds or more wells randomly blowing out daily. It could very well be an extinction event.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 12:55:00 am
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 06, 2025, 11:08:26 pmYour argument highlights a real environmental issue with abandoned oil and gas wells, and I completely agree that this problem has been underestimated for decades. However, at the same time, it would be naive to claim that there are no manipulations or distortions surrounding so-called "green energy" markets.For example, in my country, the energy market clearly illustrates how deeply distorted the current “green” pricing mechanisms have become. A disproportionately large share — often exceeding 95% of the total consumer price — effectively goes to subsidizing renewable energy producers, while nuclear energy accounts for only a small fraction of the actual income — despite providing the backbone of stable baseload generation. In addition, nuclear energy is constrained by legal limits on the amount of electricity that may be sold on the market. I’ve already shown this as a clear example that the popular belief that the market is free of speculation is pure propaganda. To deny that manipulation exists in the renewable sector is, frankly, nonsense — and I’m sure most people here are well aware of that.Of course, the exact structure of subsidies and pricing mechanisms varies from country to country, and in some places these subsidies may appear less visible or less excessive. But they are still there — deeply embedded in the system.As for the environmental cost of producing and recycling solar panels and wind turbines — these are not “fake news” at all, but rather an uncomfortable reality that is deliberately downplayed. Manufacturing them requires enormous energy input, which in most cases still comes from non-renewable sources (like coal). The process itself involves significant emissions and serious ecological impact. The fact that some people simply don’t see these effects, or don’t realize full picture where the electricity for producing solar panels actually comes from, does not make those impacts disappear.And, as you rightly pointed out, end-of-life disposal and recycling remain a major unsolved issue — one that will only grow in scale as today’s “green” infrastructure begins to age.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 01:51:19 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 07, 2025, 12:55:00 amWhere is that?Your assertions are not applicable to "Earth".

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 02:42:47 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 07, 2025, 01:51:19 amradiolistener seems to rely on the creative accounting of a vertically integrated monopoly in the Ukraine to justify their claims. Which have been rightly ridiculed for their significant amounts of manipulation and lack of free market conditions.Leaving open the interpretation of "my country" is entirely their choice and another example of lying through omission.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 02:59:40 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 02:42:47 amHey, go up there and agree with my statements about solar in my last post, or you're lying through omission. Go on, go do it.Maybe because I'm from the US I must be wrong.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 03:06:05 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 02:42:47 amI was aware, actually.I even have a basis for suspicion about which end.Someone else asked the question of radiolistener before, without answer. My query sought discovery or reinforcement of the avoidance.His assertions are rattled off without supporting evidence.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 03:12:25 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 06, 2025, 12:25:23 pmWhat has interplanetary travel to do with terrestrial energy policy in the next decades? Has someone eliminated all nuclear research, including fusion?We are probably not using propellers to leave Earth either but they seem handy for ships and small aircraft. What a pity propellers eliminated all research on rocketry.Cyclotron's was one weird post.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 03:20:17 am
content: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) calculations generally do not include the cost of solar panel recycling.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 03:51:27 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 07, 2025, 03:06:05 amThat was me; I even gave them an out, writing that if they declined to answer the question of that their country was that I would understand. But still no answer from them.It's still an open question. And it's still the case that if they (@radiolistener) decline to answer it then no harm, no foul; they're under no obligation to reveal their location. But it would help to explain some of their assertions regarding nuclear power.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 07:43:30 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 07, 2025, 03:20:17 amTrue, nor the cost of recycling coal plants, gas plants, nuclear plants, storing waste and so on.Solar and wind plants are substantially recyclable though. For solar the UNSW sieving process is said to provide very high (99%) recovery of useable materials from solar panels. Work is also being done on more 'recycling ready' long-life panel designs to further lower costs. As technologies still climbing the maturation curve they are improving as is normal.I read also that some American firms will buy solar panels for recycling, reducing LCOE. Maybe change "cost" to "profit".

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 08:19:26 am
content: For wind turbines, the problem is the blades, which are made of fibreglass and not easily recycled.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68225891

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 08:53:05 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 07, 2025, 08:19:26 amWe can dump them into the giant holes where we mined coal. You know, where mountains used to be before we mined it all.Quote from: Cyclotron on October 07, 2025, 03:20:17 amBigger issue is that it doesn't include the LCOE calculation of building an entire different power plant when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. We showed it happens for as much as weeks. Covering it with battery isn't practical, and LCOE doesn't include battery in the first place.Plus there are many countries where there is 100% renewable coverage already. So adding more will reduce the effectiveness. You will get a bit better coverage in the morning and evening, but it will be capped during the day.So overall, we need nuclear, we need gas powerplants and we need power to gas plants. That way you can increase the renewable without compromised reliability. Just imagine, actually building gas fired powerplants increases the utilization of renewable plants... Crazy, right? And having a base of 20-40% nuclear means there is enough flexibility in the system to cover all scenarios.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:24:11 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 08:53:05 amPlainly wrong, as an above linked analysis for the US does include storage costs for solarandwind:Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 10:10:53 pmUS government source included storage as a separate item, and included with solar:Quote from: Someone on September 29, 2025, 11:53:15 pmA post you already quoted!https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/new-nuclear-plants-in-the-us/msg6053907/#msg6053907"cant see anything", when actually... didn't look at all. Seems to be your speciality:Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 12:45:14 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:37:41 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 09:24:11 amBut only up to 4 hours using batteries. The report has no projection for longer term storage costs which will be needed as nights (on average) last longer than 4 hours.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:52:01 am
content: The power needs at night are usually much lower than during the days. So 4 hours of average power would be well enough for a night.The lower power needs at night are also a problem for nuclear power: when providing more than needed at night (like some 20 %) they would also need storage for excess power at night or loose the revenue at night. Nuclear power also have to provide backup for repairs - with weak points found in a whole series of reactors this may effect all reactors of the same type at the same time.How much storage is needed depends on a lot of things. A main form of storage is pumped hydro, but the availability varies a lot. Another point can be the demand side - high need for air conditioning is reasonably correlated with solar power. Heating is poorly covered by solar, but often well with wind.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:52:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 09:24:11 amI've already addressed most of this.1-2 cents is realistic.US calculations are bullshit because they spend 10x the cost on nuclear plant compared to South Korea. But even then:Even at 8 cents it's not expensive.Weather changes, renewables alone cannot fix it. Weather data was posted when you get 2 weeks of bad weather.As I said, I would like to do things your way. Please show somecredibledata that it would work. Not infographics by some unknown wishful thinking think tank. In the meantime I'm going to advocate to the next best things, which I know it will work, without causing blackouts down the line.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:55:09 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 07, 2025, 09:37:41 amAs if none of the other quoted analysis had that information in them...Amazing how many people cant find the information that is put in front of them. Not the first time in this thread someone argues there is something missing from a specific example analysis without pointing to some source of information that would support what they are saying, pretending like the other analysis which do have that information cant be found.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 10:03:22 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 09:52:57 amYou said there was no LCOE data including storage costs, despite all those costings (LCOE or otherwise) including storage. Its right there in the quote. Different regions have different weather variability which changes the required storage, not ensuring blackouts as you sensationally claim.Not just infographics as you claim, those are all well regarded analysis that are available to the public for free to review their methodologies. But you’re just repeating those hollow complaints again and others can follow the quote links to see that.Same as for the other complainers who don't like these example analysis: if you think they are so incorrect where are the correct ones? Why isn't there a credible (or even less credible like an industry association) analysis showing nuclear to be so much cheaper and renewables impractical?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 11:05:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 10:03:22 amI'm sorry but I would like to have power coming from the wall for more than 4 hours after the sun stops shining. So if your LCOE only includes 4 hours, it doesn't count. Do I really need to provide proof to you that the sun doesn't shine during the night, and nights last longer than 4 hours?Do I need to prove that what we currently have works?Are we this childish?https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34627557/x1eQo8/TNO-2018-P11577.pdfQuoteOh, BTW, let's add the costs together in Table 1.Quote1.43 cent /kWh. Somehow exactly that 1-2 cent cost that I wrote. And I used the worst case calculation.But let's just look at some more empirical evidence. Germany decided to shut down it's nuclear and solve the issue without it. The end result is world record high electricity price. France still has 71% Nuclear power share. Price? About 40% less than Germany.I'm sorry, but the data doesn't lie.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 11:22:06 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 11:05:48 amAnd to add to this, the only reason Germany doesn't have blackouts every winter is because of France. They just import the electricity when it's convenient. If it would be an island? Blackouts.And they still have about 25% coal in the generation. Driving an electric car there is more damaging currently for the environment than petrol. So how is this a better plan?Other side of France, there is Spain. I could point to the recent blackout that was apparently caused by the large adaptation of renewable unfortunately. 7 people dead. If only they had some large chunks of metal spinning, it could've been lessened or avoided.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 12:16:52 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 11:05:48 amWat? Germany has world record high electricity price and France has 40% less? I'm quite sure world record high minus 40% is still quite a lot!Data doesn't lie, but it needs to be understood correctly. Clearly, France and Germany benefit from each other. Neither would work well in isolation: France would have "too much" nuclear, and Germany would have "too little" of it (oversimplified).You need to look the grid as a whole, with connections; borders are political. Having a lot of nuclear works for France exactly because others don't do it, and they have decent grid connections to sell it outside. If one draws a conclusion that every other country should try to do the same, this would fail miserably. (I'm not saying you are drawing that conclusion, your earlier comments are pretty balanced and sensible.)Case in point about grid borders vs. country borders: Sweden has multiple spot price regions with separate auctions, Finland has one. Nothern parts of Sweden have actually better grid connections to Finland than the Southern part of the country, so that the market characteristics follow separate borders, not the country borders.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 03:48:56 pm
content: RadiolistenerQuoteI would point out the obvious.1)Solar and wind installations are above ground and can easily be recycled using known technology. This is not true of the billions of miles of oil/gas pipe and leaking well casing. Nobody is going to be recycling any of it because it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.2)Oil and gas never includes all the subsidized hidden costs.-Who is going to pay for the millions of polluted drinking water wells?. Obviously not the oil/gas companies, they deny responsibility.-Who is going to pay the trillions and trillions of dollars to fix literally every steel well casing which will eventually rust out and leak?.-Who is going to pay to decontaminate all the polluted soil and water?.-Who is going to pay to compensate all the land owners, businesses, fisheries, tourism etc. for damages?.It's comical because what your talking about, green subsidies, isn't even a drop in the bucket relative to the clean up involved in the oil and gas sector. Your comparison isn't apples and oranges, your trying to compare one apple to every orange ever grown in the last 1000 years.Here is a clue... In every case the oil and gas industry clean up significantly exceeds the industry's projected profits. Let that sink in...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 04:01:45 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 07, 2025, 03:48:56 pmI'm not acknowledging your numbers but you have left out a few issues: who is going to pay for health care costs due to pollution caused by burninh fossil fuels? Who is going to pay for climate change damages? Rising sea levels will consume massive amounts of arable / inhabitable land. Who is going to pay for that?If you add these costs up, then nuclear suddenly looks good. It would not surprise me that even if you have 200km exclusion zones around (big, double digit GW) nuclear power plants, you'd still come out on top compared to land that will be lost to the sea at some point if the world keeps using fossil fuels.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 04:43:03 pm
content: nctnicoQuoteIt depends on what kind of "nuclear" you mean.If you mean conventional fission which is primitive and inefficient the answer is no. If you mean fusion or new technology which could use our existing nuclear waste as fuel then yes.Any supposed solution should be a real solution not create more problems we don't have the knowledge to solve.In fact, nuclear power is just a long term form of renewable energy. The energy locked in nuclear fuel was created by exploding stars and supernova billions of years ago from other places in the universe. All the energy sources we know of are in fact renewable if we look at longer time cycles.So I find the phrase "renewable energy doesn't work" kind of absurd. All energy is renewable because it cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. We should try to get our facts straight.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 05:00:28 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 07, 2025, 04:01:45 pmOf course, most only think of "nuclear" through the lens of fission and then of old designs.It's evident that a mix of energy sources is best, and the more you zoom in, the clearer it becomes which components are best for an area.This articledescribes the competitive and other advantages of SMRs.In my area, we have a mixture of all of the popular ones, but for geothermal. We have lots of offshore wind. We have a significant amount of solar energy. Unlike out west, where there's huge land areas that are great for solar, most of the land in my area is first limited by water boundaries and then the land is used for food or domiciles.There are two extensive nuclear facilities, one about 15 miles from me. But I live much closer to a cyclotron and enormous numbers of atomic weapons and military nuclear energy.Our area can be well served by SMRs and offshore wind, although the cost is high for this approach. Maybe a tidal generation facility may be workable, but I've not seen any at scale. Investments and continued work in the nuclear fission and fusion fields cannot be purely academic. I will install solar panels at my home, and I wish my community would allow small wind turbines on private properties, but we don't. We've seen far too many instances in academia where attempts to scale something that worked in a lab didn't work out.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 05:11:42 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 07, 2025, 04:43:03 pmRemember the Third Law of Thermodynamics: transformation of energy always degrades its usefulness, even though the quantity is conserved.Example: start with electrical power from a wind turbine, connect it to a resistor that heats a boiler, then generate electrical power using a steam turbine. Compare that to an efficient electrical transformer or good switching power supply to provide power to the user.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 05:45:07 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on October 07, 2025, 05:11:42 pmThat's a somewhat incorrect interpretation of that law. It doesn't actually say anything about the usefulness.For example in your room there is a bunch of low energy state air molecules bouncing around. They are very useful. If you could get all the energy out of these and turn it into a high energy state ball of plasma, I'm not sure you would want to do that.But if we are going through the same though process, philosophy about energy and matter. Here is a question for you: There is a bunch of coal underground. What's more useful, having this just lying there? Or turning it into biodiversity? Extra trees, covering Sahara and the big desert in the middle of continental US? Wouldn't it be nice? Extra animals. People. Well nice people, not rude ones.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 06:19:24 pm
content: "Usefulness" is an informal term for the technical term "entropy".Unfortunately, entropy is a difficult concept for general use, so I simplified it to usefulness to describe what you can get out of it.Note how the electrical energy "degrades" as it goes through the process I sketched.S Carnot's work in 1824 about thermal processes is seminal for all of this, and as thermodynamics evolved to statistical mechanics, this concept still applies.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 08:11:16 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on October 07, 2025, 05:11:42 pmVeritasium has a good video on this topic:https://youtu.be/DxL2HoqLbyA

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 08:54:02 pm
content: TimFoxQuoteNot always and we need to be specific.The Sun transforms hydrogen in a fusion reaction into energy which is radiated outward towards the Earth, this is Entropy. However plants like a tree then concentrate this energy allowing it to concentrate materials like water, CO2 and minerals to grow, this is Syntropy. Here we can see transformations of energy like in a tree and all living things does not degrade the energy usefulness but increase it locally.Likewise, we could ask where the Sun (a star) came from?. Same deal and energy/material was concentrated locally through gravitational forces which started the fusion reaction. This energy transformation was quite useful to us as it's responsible for our existence and all life on Earth.As we can see energy transformations are a two way street. I like to think of it this way, yes energy radiates outward but it always has to go through a bunch of stuff on it's way. Energy radiates then concentrates, radiates then concentrates in a near perpetual cycle so far as we know because energy cannot be created or destroyed.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 09:48:30 pm
content: You can test this with trees by burning the wood and comparing the result to a hypothetical collection of all the insolation that hit the solid angle subtended by the tree before cutting the tree down.Of course, solar energy will, long after my lifetime, be not renewed after enough of the hydrogen has fused that fueled the reactions and the remainder of the star collapses to a dwarf, or whatever.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 10:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 07, 2025, 08:54:02 pmYes, energy is a two-way street: it cannot be created (although the total energy of the Universe is likely zero, but that’s another story). However, certain processes can proceed only in one direction along that street. For example, you need higher-energy photons for photosynthesis - two photons with half the energy each will not do the trick.If you watch the first 2 minutes of Veritasium’s video, you’ll learn that the Earth receives as much energy from the Sun as it radiates back into space. The reason Earth’s biosphere is alive is not simply because the planet receives energy from the outside (it does not - see above), but because the energy it receives from the Sun is lower in entropy, in other words, it comes as higher-temperature, shorter-wavelength, higher-energy photons, than the energy it radiates back, which is lower-temperature, longer-wavelength, lower-energy photons.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 10:11:09 pm
content: An informal equivalent to the "lower entropy" label of an energy source is "more useful", but "entropy" has a formal definition in thermodynamics ("the queen of the physical sciences").

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 10:22:11 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 11:05:48 amYou saidzeroincluded storage, which is plainly false. When the solar (for example) is "over-provisioned" by 4x or so of nameplate to deliver the same energy as a continuously running plant you have 4 hours of storage over multiple plants that is then spread over the discharge, not some toy 4 hours of use battery across the entire grid. Other analysis go further and look at what sizing of storage is needed against different "over provisioning" ratios to find the economic minimum, what I have seen that ends up cheaper than Nuclear.Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 11:05:48 amYes, you can add some numbers together for the marginal operating cost of a nuclear plant. Forgetting to include the capital costs. We keep being told in this thread how Nuclear is amazing and has low operating costs, but the pushback is their other costs add up over the life of plant (LCOE) to be so much higher than alternatives it becomes uneconomic in many regions (I'm not surprised a costing in 2017 for the Netherlands finds solar to be a poor economic choice).So if we go another paragraph or two into the document you choose to support your claims....QuoteYet you pick out some other small component of the LCOE and wave it around like it is comparable. Should we post up the marginal costs of renewables for comparison? no, as the whole lifecycle cost has to be paid somehow. Your choice of reference, even higher LCOE numbers!

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 07, 2025, 11:36:55 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 07, 2025, 03:20:17 amYou're absolutely right — LCOE calculations generally exclude the cost of recycling, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. They also ignore a far more significant external cost: the public health impact of coal combustion used to power the production of solar panels in the first place.Many people prefer not to think about this, assuming it’s “someone else’s problem” — since most panels are produced in China, the resulting lung cancer and related healthcare costs are borne primarily by Chinese citizens. However, atmospheric pollution doesn’t respect borders. The radioactive isotopes and fine particulates released from coal burning disperse globally, affecting air quality and increasing cancer risks worldwide, albeit to a lesser extent than in production regions.If we were to include the true external costs — healthcare, environmental degradation, and atmospheric contamination — into the LCOE of solar energy, we might discover that generating electricity with a bicycle dynamo would actually be more cost-effective.LCOE was originally introduced as a convenient comparative metric — but over time, it has often been weaponized to support a predetermined narrative. In particular, it became a tool for justifying the politically driven claim that nuclear power is "uneconomic". By design, LCOE simplifies the complex reality of energy economics into a single number, which makes it easy to manipulate by selectively including or excluding specific cost factors.Crucially, it tends to omit or understate long-term system-level costs — such as grid stability, backup generation, waste management, or environmental and health impacts. And since the methodology was shaped during a period of aggressive promotion of renewables, anything that would make nuclear look more favorable was simply left out.In essence, LCOE doesn’t measure the real cost of energy — it measures the politically convenient cost. It was never intended to capture the full lifecycle and systemic externalities of different energy sources.In other words,LCOE figures are essentially propaganda metrics— numbers designed to support a predetermined narrative rather than reflect real economic performance.For this reason, I prefer to rely on real production figures — specifically, the actual operating costs of nuclear power plants (actual selling price from NPP). In my country, the economic framework historically applied to state-owned enterprises is based on accounting for real expenditures and a reasonable profit margin, calculated using a rational interest rate rather than an arbitrary one. This approach provides a clear picture of the true cost of nuclear energy, which is around 0.013 USD/kWh.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:23:08 am
content: My naive understanding of thermodynamics is that all tends to thermal equilibrium, and the final outcome will be an absolutely uniform "soup" of energy, a thermal death. However, everything around me behaves exactly the opposite.Things like to lump together, and get structure. I see atoms and planets and galaxies and intergalactic filaments of matter. Even the Big Bang, if I were to believe it, tells the opposite story of a thermal death: in the beginning all was very, very uniform, and since then, more and more structure has arise.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:34:43 am
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on October 08, 2025, 12:23:08 amThat reminded me that there'snew studies out backing the "Big Crunch"as the end of the universe. I have no idea why that sounds better than thermal death, but it does to me.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:39:31 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 07, 2025, 11:36:55 pmBecause other generation sources certainly don't require any resources or energy in their production? Laughable.Even renewable energy organisations openly acknowledge PV solar has more embodied energy (and lifecycle emissions) than nuclear or wind:https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdfCalling out China for their emissions intensity? Not actually that different from the US:https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-unit-energy?tab=line&country=CHN~USA

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:56:43 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 08, 2025, 12:39:31 amSomeone is really interested in China.How about a large set:https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-per-unit-energy?tab=line&country=CHN~AUS~USA~GBR~IND~JPN~DEU

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 05:57:16 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 07, 2025, 11:22:06 amWhere did you get that idea?An EV using electricity 100% generated from coal is still more efficient, less emissions-intensive, than a petrol vehicle. Apart from an electric motor having far more efficient immediate energy conversion than petrol, compensating for coal-powered generation, all petrol vehicles spend almost all their time operating below their "efficient" band making the difference clear-cut.Also, Germany's renewables proportion stands around 60% in 2025, not zero.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 06:08:46 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 07, 2025, 11:36:55 pmradiolistener has just argued that no new thing should ever be built because in the first instance you need the old things to start doing it.So he must also be opposed to nuclear power because coal fired power is needed to build them too, not to mention more lung diseases from concrete dust.Alternatively, he is hopelessly inconsistent, or a propagandist.Also, China's electricity production (TWh) in 2024 was 59% renewable. radiolistener will be so pleased they are getting rid of coal.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 08:08:15 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 08, 2025, 05:57:16 amThe current mix is around 60%, but if additional power is used this to a large part (depends on the weather) would be power from coal and not 60% renewables. With an electric vehicle there motors are efficient, but in winter quite some electricity is used for heating. There is also quite some difference between coal fired power plants. Overall the it does not make much difference (depends on details) between using gasoline or an EV powerd from coal.The point is that it is planed to increase the fraction of renewables and a car that it bought today would be used for another 10 years or so.China is increasing the fraction of resnewables, but they are still also building new coal fired power plants.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 09:36:15 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 08, 2025, 08:08:15 amI quoted electricity proportions actually generated in 2024, not capacity or peak.These are the efficiency measures I used:An EV motor is about 85%-90% efficient.A coal-fired plant is 40%-55% efficient, run at a fairly static load.A petrol vehicle is ideally around 30%-40% efficient.In normal use that efficiency drops to 10-15% around town, 15%-30% general driving.Range for the "coal-powered" EV is thus 34%-50% compared with 10%-30%. Add any renewable generation whatsoever and it becomes too obvious. Germany and China are both around 60% and last month Australia generated more from renewables than coal for the first time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 10:01:21 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 08, 2025, 05:57:16 amNope. Electricity from coal produces around 900gram CO2 per kWh on a good day. That translates to 200grams of CO2 per km when used to power an EV. A modern day, efficient hybrid on petrol sits at half those CO2 emissions per km (given same car size, same driving style). And then there is the SO2 pollution coming from coal. SO2 is amongst the stuff that gives people respiratory disseases. In the Netherlands (with strict emission limits on coal fired power plants), having only a few percent use of coal, an EV results in over 5 times more SO2 output compared to an efficient hybrid on petrol. Similar story for NOx. Imagine if you power an EV from 100% coal fired electricity. It is a really bad idea from a pollution point of view (as they probably are starting to realise in China given their focus on renewables and nuclear).Bottom line: if you starting thinking in efficiencies, you get lost very quickly because you are overlooking many details.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 10:55:15 am
content: @nctnico, thanks for commenting on a whole bunch of things that were not part of the post to which I responded nor my reply. I do not recall advocating coal nor discussing pollution, although that is certainly pertinent to the need to shift away from it. The energy conversion efficiencies of which I spoke stand and any amount of renewables use at all shifts everything, pollution included.The actual rate of renewable use in the countries discussed renders all claims about "coal-fired" EVs quite absurd.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 11:37:18 am
content: I'm still waiting for them to start on "smart grid" stuff. Problem is governments do not get involved enough in setting standards, that is left to "the market" and "competition". This results in the farce that where the first generation of UK smart meters that all get scrapped.There are several people down my street with EV's, and yet there is no way have time sharing so that when more EV's arrive we all get charged but without overloading the substation or having to have the supply upgraded.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 11:58:35 am
content: Quote from: Simon on October 08, 2025, 11:37:18 amTrust me, it would be even worse if they got involved...We did data integrations with European TSO systems (basically as designed by Entro-e). Which is closest to the government being imaginable (even if TSOs are private companies on paper). Oh my god the communication standards are freaking complicated. We spent two months full time figuring out the software stack and middleware after middleware after middleware after middleware and XML after XML after XML how to send 96 numbers (bids)!Private sector comes up with solutions when incentives are large enough. And that means natural incentives like large price variations in electricity pricing directly caused by physical realities. But governments instead try to be nice to everyone and come up with crap like artificial subsidiaries, fixed pricing models etc. etc. and these totally kill the innovation on private sector. What remains is hoping for the government to magically solve the problem themselves (after preventing the private sector from solving it), which is of course a ludicrous idea, never going to happen.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:06:40 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 08, 2025, 11:58:35 amYou are overlooking something very important here: the free market doesn't care about who gets left behind. But governments have to care about distribution of wealth and make sure energy stays affordable for everyone so everyone can participate in the society. Hence subsidies are required. As an example: Look at what happened in France a couple of years ago; the yellow jacket protests. As a result there is a price cap on fuel sold by the French state owned oil company (Total Energies). In the Netherlands taxes on fuel have been reduced and there is a fund to help poor people pay their energy bills. Free market just gives poor people the proverbial middle finger. Sure, free market finds some optimum, but that optimum brings other costs and social unsafety.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 12:11:07 pm
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 08, 2025, 10:55:15 amYes, by looking at efficiency, we forget the big picture.We also forget that Germany had to increase it's coal usage starting from 2010 because they were phasing out nuclear.And the seasonality of solar:It's a 1 to 8 change seasonal. Maybe it's good that wind has a larger share in the generation. But that has it's own problems:1 to 30 or so? Look at the beginning of August, you have 10 days without any meaningful wind.There is no battery technology that would cover these large periods effectively. Renewables only work, because we still have the required generators from other sources: coal, gas, oil. If you are lucky with the geography than you can build a dam. How is the LCOE of a gas fired power plant that will sit around 95% of the time, and be switched on when the weather makes it necessary? Can you take these in vacuum, without considering that renewables don't work all the time? Should we just ignore that?Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 10:22:11 pmYou are right, I couldn've used more precice language.Quote from: Someone on October 07, 2025, 10:22:11 pmIt also shows that with some political decisions the investment cost can be minimized. For example getting rid of the ridiculous administrative burden of building a second copy of a plant next to the first one required 40000 pages of environmental studies. It's just using Bureaucracy to block nuclear. Also you keep ignoring that I'm talking about strategic investments. What's the ROI of an aircraft carrier? How about the police department. Do you also ask them about their finances to justify their existence?No, so let's move on from that. What you keep repeating like a parrot is that Nuclear is not a good idea if it's market financed. Which everyone agrees on. It's the same thing as planting a walnut tree, if you only do it for the immediate ROI then nobody ever will eat walnuts. The nuclear plants that we use now are often built by our grandfathers, and they didn't care one flying f about ROI or LCOE. They did it state funded. The alternative was burning things. And the alternative still is burning things.Some smart countries like the Netherlands and apparently the USA realized that these plants need to be replaced and are building more. Maybe we don't need as many as we had in the past, thanks to renewables, and batteries.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 01:14:47 pm
content: The German Solar Generation chart would be more interesting if it included consumption/month. Just to show how important the solar generation really is.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 01:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 08, 2025, 12:06:40 pmThe problem with private enterprise is that the goal is to make as much money as possible usually by becoming the sole supplier eventually. To that end imperceptibility is not even on the list, it leads to years of messing about, buying stuff and scrapping it because that is good for the stated goal of reducing our impact.The world works on standards. I have just discovered miracast, I am amazed that such interoperability between brands can exist just like wifi itself. The bodies that come up with these sort of standards should be setting the smart grid standards.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 01:55:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 08, 2025, 12:06:40 pmSure. I think simple forms of social benefits - i.e., direct money - even with all the shortcomings and problems - is still a much better way to help the poor, than messing with energy market mechanisms, because latter results in loss of innovation, loss of job opportunities, loss of money on national scale, loss of competitive edge against other countries, and finally, more expensive energyon average.So better let the energy market find the optimum and help the poorest people out in other ways.The problem is large middle class of people making colossally wrong decisions because of the subsidized / manipulated energy markets. Your "think about thechildrenpoor people" argument always has that tendency, it never works for the intended group. So subsidized gasoline "so that poor can afford it" means upper middle class will continue buying large BMW SUVs.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 02:06:23 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 08, 2025, 01:55:33 pmThere are no truly "free markets". All markets are regulated, and while I'm not a fan of regulation, it is obvious that we can't trust companies to do the right thing.The best example I have of this is the cable/broadband market in the US. Companies appear to actively avoid competition, and it's such a horrible disaster that even the TV Show.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 02:13:50 pm
content: I've done a couple of searches and haven't found much. Is anyone aware of a country/place where consumers can choose their energy supplier?Where I live, I can only buy energy from one company.I believe that if the infrastructure for energy and things like cable/broadband were independent and couldn't be owned by the supplier, you could create a market where the suppliers can offer their services to the consumer on the infrastructure. The market would behave due to demand and consumer decisions instead of corporate ones.Edit:I found that some US states do have such markets for energyhttps://www.resausa.org/energy-by-state/

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 02:25:54 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 08, 2025, 02:06:23 pmDefinitely agree. Regulation should impose limits rather than offsets; or putting penalty costs on agreeably and obviously harmful things (like pollution). Regulation should not change too abruptly; it should be predictable rather than on a whim when politicians feel like they get votes for doing some random thing. And finally, regulation should be simple. Having two opposite forms of offsets that partially cancel out is cancerous because it generates weird edge cases and people start optimizing their actions to maximize their short-term profit on these arbitrary metrics.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 02:27:22 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 08, 2025, 02:13:50 pmIn the Netherlands that is quite common. However, that is a bit of a farce because the network operators are fixed and their cost is about 30% of the electricity bill. And there is another 30% of taxes.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 02:50:22 pm
content: tszabooQuoteYou made some good points I agree with.The immediate ROI is a poor indicator of somethings usefulness over time. In fact the hypocrisy is kind of comical when a majority of people waste money on stuff with no ROI. The average guy overly critical about solar energy thinks nothing of buying a 60K truck which loses half it's value in 2 years and sits in the driveway 80% of the time,. Even more comical, over 90% of 1/2 ton trucks I see on the road aren't hauling anything. I have a truck, it's a work truck, it doesn't move unless it's hauling something, it's a man's truck not just for show.Of course, the problem with nuclear nobody likes to talk about is all the old reactors. How many nuclear plants have you seen demolished or recycled?. The answer is zero because all the materials and the site are highly radioactive. They will sit there doing nothing contaminating the air, soil and groundwater for thousands of years.In fact, it's similar to the Zombie Well scenario where the associated clean up costs after the fact would far exceed any usefulness or profits generated. So let's be clear, nuclear is a slow moving train wreck which will be totally subsidized by the taxpayers.In my opinion, Germany and many European countries have the right idea. They use decentralized local Combined Heat and Power units or CHP. They run at over 90% efficiency and can change load in minutes. As such the real world efficiency, usefulness and ROI are high with no subsidies required. The added bonus is that a CHP can also operate off grid so if the SHTF the local area is unaffected.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 03:01:50 pm
content: Quotecome to the uk,we get to chose which supplier rips us off.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 03:21:11 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 08, 2025, 02:13:50 pmI would have imagined that in the land of freedom, that would be obvious.I mean, in Finland for example it was a big news in 1998 when it became possible for consumers to choose their energy suppliers, same story pretty much all over the Europe.But maybe not in North Korea and FreedomlandThen again, unlike energy, grid is a resource of natural monopoly. You really can't choose who operates/maintains the grid (on national level, and on distribution level).

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 03:31:20 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 08, 2025, 02:50:22 pmHolding the energy corporations accountable for the decommissioning of all energy source infrastructure is essential. I don't mind talking about energy infrastructure decommissioning. I have concerns about them all. None are traceless and free from environmental and human impact debt.Nuclear sites with completed decommissioning include the Saxton nuclear reactor (USA), the Beaverlodge Uranium Mill (Canada) in 1985, and the Bohunice units in 2025. Other examples include the STURGIS barge and the SM-1 (Fort Belvoir, USA), as well as the decommissioning of the Experimental Boiling Water Reactor (EBWR) at Argonne. Not exactly "Zero". There's far more to consider when we examine military nuclear power. I just wanted to provide you with some examples; it's not an exhaustive list.Another factor involved is that there are relatively few nuclear plants that have stopped operating compared to active units and other energy sources. They are very long-lasting facilities and can even extend past a generation of humans. And lastly, subsidies are everywhere. As you said, ROI isn't a great or objective tool. It, like LCOE, is a subjective thing and often used like statistics to generate support for whatever the writer's goals are.As for the truck/SUV utilization, it is simply an escalating arms race on the highways that drives a lot of it. The soccer mom pickup truck is so the driver feels big like the rest of the people on the road, offering presence and visibility. I travel extensively, and this year will take me all over Canada (I'm looking forward to it), but I don't drive much. My wife does not like cars anymore, and her statements color my beliefs about why large SUVs and trucks are popular. She wants what she feels is respect on the public highways. Of course, nothing says GTF out of my way like a 1968 International Scout with railroad track bumpers.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 03:50:02 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 08, 2025, 03:21:11 pmI'm unsure what you're trying to say other than to toss shade at the US. Your response to the part you quoted from me doesn't make sense.Why would my search be obvious?Then you toot the Finland horn and compare the US to North Korea? It seems you have some animosity towards the US that you'd like to vent.As my link shows, the US has states where energy, both electrical and natural gas, is brought to market more competitively. I would like to see that where I live as well as broadband/cable. I know of places in the US where the hyper-local community owns the fiber optics to the homes, and the providers can be selected at the head end by the consumer.The US is made up of states and territories, similar to how Canada is made up of provinces and territories. There are at least 3 main and at least 6 energy grids in the US and in my state there's large players and cooperatives. That "Freedom" shade comes with the complexities of less overall regulation in rules than you might think. Generally, I prefer the freedoms.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2025, 10:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 08, 2025, 12:11:07 pmSomeone has to pay the cost, so compare on the same metric. A government funding future energy in the US with upfront investment (oh no! subsidies) could produce more energy for the money spent if they invest in solar or wind, even if they added batteries to smooth out the delivery which is shown repeatedly in LCOE analysis. Suggesting the government invests in more expensive sources is a cost to the country if not the consumer directly.If you really want to play those stupid games around "oh but that isn't counted" then wind and solar have even lower again marginal/operating costs:https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculatorSo on your choice of comparison (assuming the upfront investment does not matter and can be discounted to 0) then solar still beats nuclear by a wide margin with wind only slightly cheaper than nuclear. This still holds even if you add storage costing with solar, wind+storage overlaps with nuclear depending on source of the numbers but as discussed above if the penetration of nuclear increases then it will also need storage in a like-for-like comparison.Pick your companion basis and apply it to all the sources, not misleading comparisons of completely different metrics.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 12:19:50 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 08, 2025, 10:13:23 pmTalk about dumb and games. This is why I have no interest in playing your spreadsheet games.Those LCOE only use 10 and 20 year LTOs. The US just licensed a plant for 80 years. Put that in your spreadsheet and calculate it.3, 2, 1, more whining coming from you, I'm sure. More cherry picking, half-truths, and not agreeing with things you know are factual. I mean, aren't you Mr. Liar by omission?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 12:24:04 am
content: Tell us; does LCOE for nuclear power include decommissioning? spent fuel disposal/reprocessing? waste disposal?You'd think at least decommissioning should be amortized over the life of the power plant.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 12:49:01 am
content: LCOE was a model developed a long time ago, and numerous articles and studies have shown that it is not suitable for determining the cost of energy in the modern era. There's been a lot of effort to modernize the formula and so on, but there are such vast differences between the types of energy sources that the math problems aren't trivial. Similar to predicting the weather, there are far too many variables and nuances to make more than horseshoe and hand grenade estimates. Not only this, but they ignore the macroeconomics and microeconomics of the delivery of energy altogether.LCOE is like statistics; you can tell someone's lying when they use them. They are regularly pointed to provide a talking point by the person who created those instances, and they always seem to agree with them.The most popular uses are by financing organizations, which then use them to charge rates on those energy systems. Their goal is profit and isn't necessarily aligned with the energy market, the best for humanity, the best for the environment, or anything else other than their profit.Some links:https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-levelized-cost-of-energy-scamhttps://247solar.com/the-irrelevance-of-lcoe-for-evaluating-wind-and-solar/https://www.utilitydive.com/news/lcoe-is-not-the-metric-you-think-it-is/578360/https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/debunking-levelized-cost-of-energyhttps://watt-logic.com/2023/08/26/challenging-the-cheap-renewables-myth/Trust me, that's nowhere near all of it. Countries and companies continue to invest in and create diverse energy supplies, and they seem to be doing so against the "logic of the LCOE."

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 05:30:32 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 08, 2025, 12:11:07 pmThat cost is not ignored in the AEMO/CSIRO analysis relevant in Australia. "Firming" is costed to include gas peaking as well as hydro, batteries and lesser approaches. It also recognises that in an ideal case those gas plants will be doing absolutely nothing, given their high pollution levels, but their capital cost is not high in a total energy system.QuoteWe agree. I have consistently stated that in many countries nuclear, as much as 10%-20%, will be part of the mix. I do not expect such a plant in Fiji or Nepal, yet they too need reliable energy and it can be supplied.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 05:40:19 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 09, 2025, 12:49:01 amThat is one of those silly commonplaces. Statistical analysis is vital to pretty much everything in your life, right through to quantum mechanics.I scanned all of the links provided by Cyclotron. None of them actually demonstrates what he hopes, regardless of any error or omission by Lazard, and owing to errors or unsound assumptions by the article authors.I read that this year the world has produced more electricity from renewables than coal, the latter now down to about 33% I think. That is good news for coal's eradication from the electricity system, with its concomitant pollution. It also shows that renewables growth is faster than nuclear, which is to be expected on cost-effectiveness and without any current expectation of eliminating fission reactors. The nuclear percentage will settle at a lower level.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 07:43:47 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 09, 2025, 05:40:19 amI looked a little closer, some minor nit picks like why is the levelled cost expressed in todays dollars "they didn't include time value of money"... except there is no reason to add time value of money when the upfront costs are being priced on loans already incorporating that and it is much easier to work in todays dollars where the projects have different timespans (more so when they have large upfront costs like renewables, nuclear, and storage). Or big bold propaganda hidden with a meek acknowledgement "this old report from 2012 says batteries are expensive" but didn't bother to look for any recent comparisons or alternative data sources.The links mostly rely on the same old tired/incorrect argument which is that solar or wind should bear the entire cost of storage, which makes no sense, particularly if some other inflexible generator (such as Nuclear) is proposed for a significant share of generation. But what has changed in the past few years is renewables and storage getting cheaper again. Now, even if wind/solar should take on that cost alone recent market forces now have Lazard and Gencost predicting; solar and wind while adding the cost of firming in batteries are competitive or cheaper than new build Nuclear for similar reliability as the grid has today.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 08:42:18 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 08, 2025, 10:13:23 pmSubsidizing nuclear energy makes sense not because it is inherently uneconomical, but because the industry is subject to extremely strict regulation and oversight. Unlike solar panels or wind turbines, building reactors, producing fuel, and conducting nuclear research require special permits and adherence to stringent safety standards. Without government support, private companies simply cannot operate in this sector — it’s a regulatory barrier, not an issue of efficiency.And nuclear energy could produce an order of magnitude more electricity at lower cost and without any subsidies. What is needed is simply the removal of artificial regulatory and administrative restrictions that currently limit electricity generation for NPP.By contrast, the powerful actors aggressively push narratives using manipulative metrics like LCOE and pressure governments to subsidize ‘green’ energy projects and corrupt schemes. Renewable energy is rarely constrained, on the contrary, it is subsidized to excessive and often irrational levels. Producing solar panels or wind turbines requires no special permits or strict safety measures — practically anyone can enter the market — yet government-mandated purchases drain resources from nuclear energy.Arguments suggesting that a government could produce more energy by subsidizing even more into these channels are therefore absurd. Renewable energy already receives excessive subsidies and preferential treatment, creating huge opportunities for corruption, budget misallocation, and continuous inflation of electricity and fuel costs, ultimately threatening economic stability.I would even argue that electricity and fuel prices are currently inflated by 10–20 times, and in some cases even higher. The main causes are subsidies for ‘green’ energy and the disproportionately heavy tax and regulatory burden and limits placed on other energy sources, particularly nuclear power.This situation demonstrates that green energy, despite financial support through such mechanisms, is fundamentally non-viable and its artificial bubble is heading toward a serious collapse with significant consequences for participating countries.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:06:50 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 08:42:18 amAn order of magnitude? just by cutting out artificial costs? You'd of course have some references and citations to back that up?Nuclear industry says the opposite with regulatory expenses being a small fraction of other costs:https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/resources/reports-and-briefs/2024-Costs-in-Context_final.pdfBut who wants improved safety to address issues like Fukushima had? Lets go hard and stop building any confinement at all and just have naked reactors surrounded by a chain link fence in a field of cows, you still wont get anywhere near an order of magnitude change in the lifetime cost.To make an order of magnitude difference the regulatory costs would need to be already greater than 10:1 ratio with other costs. It is unbelievable the entire industry is hiding such a significant cost and there is no public data to support your claim.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:50:41 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 09:06:50 amIt is about removing artificial restrictions on purchasing electricity from NPP, which have been put in place to create artificial preferential conditions for ‘green’ energy.Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 09:06:50 amThis is not a matter of the nuclear industry itself claiming such things — it is the narrative pushed by corrupt structures, the very actors you are defending. A clear example can be seen in my country: NPP was built with the expectation of very high demand from industrial consumers, but due to external pressures, many of these enterprises were shut down, and electricity consumption also fell thanks to energy-saving measures. As a result, generation capacity exceeded consumption by an order of magnitude, while prices skyrocketed.And this excessive generation capacity was used for shutting down the Chernobyl NPP, rather than concerns about radiation, as is often claimed.Looking closely at the energy price structure, around 70-80% of gasoline cost comes from taxes, licenses, and excise charges. Previously, with the same oil prices, gasoline was ten times cheaper simply due to lower taxes. For example, gasoline in our country is almost twice as expensive as in the US, despite the fact that we produce our own oil. This situation may seem absurd, but it has become reality due to all these corrupted schemes promoted by external actors shaping the energy agenda. Many try to attribute this to local corruption and oligarchs, but behind them stand far more powerful international actors. Incidentally, from what I’ve heard, the same our local oligarchs are now establishing new corrupt schemes in countries like Italy or Spain, and as far as I can see, local authorities are participating with interest.The exact same situation applies to natural gas. My country produces enough gas to fully meet its domestic needs, and the production cost was once disclosed — it turned out to be more than ten times lower than the final price paid by consumers.A similar situation exists with electricity: NPP sell power at around 0.013 USD/kWh, while end-user prices can reach 0.50 USD/kWh. This demonstrates that the massive difference in cost is not due to the inherent expense of nuclear generation, but to artificial regulatory, tax, and market constraints imposed on the sector.I am not very familiar with the situation across Europe, but from what I’ve heard, Germany is facing similar issues with rising electricity prices following the closure of NPP.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:18:41 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 09:50:41 amKeep quoting that figure out of context (and without even acknowledging its source) and you'll continue to be labelled a troll. That is an internal transfer price attached to nuclear power within a vertically integrated monopoly. Nothing at all to do with real world costs or economic viability.Cling to that one magic number you claim answers every single question and proves nuclear is cheap, but it doesn't as much as you'd like it to. If it was true why are there zero trustworthy sources using it in support of nuclear power? why can't you find any references or citations to support your claims?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:47:41 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 10:18:41 amI have already provided a reference to an official document where this price was disclosed. The exact same situation exists with gasoline and natural gas — final consumer prices are artificially inflated, approximately ten times higher than the actual production cost. The situation with gasoline can be easily verified through official government reports that detail the price structure, and is further confirmed by the fact that with the same oil prices in the past, gasoline cost was ten times lower, and the cost of gas production was also once officially disclosed by a government official.The fact that price markups for different energy sources generally fall within the same order of magnitude — approximately 10–20 times, with deviations up to 30 times for electricity — further highlights that this is a systemic approach to inflating prices rather than reflecting actual production or extraction costs.As for the accusations of trolling, it seems there is a coordinated effort to use personal attacks as a means to aggressively label and dismiss anyone whose statements do not align with the promoted narrative. The underlying interest of this narrative appears to be supporting corrupt schemes in the green energy sector, maintaining artificially high energy prices, and creating economic risks — all of which benefit large international players — rather than transparently revealing the corruption behind these mechanisms.It is unclear whether this is intended as censorship or merely to promote your narrative, but in any case, resorting to personal attacks highlights a lack of substantive arguments and an inability to engage in a respectful discussion.Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 10:18:41 amToday, much of the world operates under the influence of powerful transnational actors. Officials in virtually every country are either obliged to promote this narrative or risk facing personal attacks, dismissal, or other forms of pressure. In such an environment, expecting any official to openly speak about these issues would be naive.Nevertheless, such voices can occasionally be heard from officials, although such statements are often censored or criticized by mass media under their influence.And your so-called ‘trustworthy sources’ are often in fact hubs of overt propaganda, closely aligned with the very narratives promoted by these transnational actors — much like how you describe ‘Digital ID’ as being promoted by a 'trustworthy authority', supposedly for the public good, but in reality enabling centralized databases, tracking, and surveillance.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 11:20:28 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 10:47:41 amWhere? in this thread you asked people to hunt through your post history and find it themselves. Why don't you include that context when you use the number? Why go to all this length to obfuscate and distract the source of the number? Because the original source does not support what you claim that number represents.If it is so important and the answer to cheap nuclear power why is there zero other coverage or analysis of it? You claim it overturns all these other well accepted analysis yet cannot find any references to support that.Instead you personally describe the price in context as a politically manipulated and distorted market:Quote from: radiolistener on September 28, 2025, 06:54:59 amSo we should trust the price they put on nuclear power?An internal selling price (the singular number you keep quoting) does not imply that being a lifetime cost, or even a short term profit. The numbers are so far outside anything a credible source suggests as the best case that it is plainly unbelievable what you are saying. Bring some evidence or shut up.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 11:51:45 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 11:20:28 amThe document you are asking about is the same one you have already seen, which we have discussed before. You even referred to the more precise value in it — to four decimal places — whereas I mentioned it rounded to two, which clearly shows that you have reviewed the document yourself.I do not repeat the link because I do not keep it for the purpose of showing it to you, and frankly, I am too lazy to search for it again — it is sufficient for me that I have seen the figure in an official document, and you have seen that document as well. Beyond this document, I also recall other public confirmations from officials indicating exactly the same figure, although I cannot provide links to their statements.If you have documents with a more detailed breakdown of prices, please feel free to share them. And please, spare me the usual LCOE nonsense — we both know how that metric is being manipulated.Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 11:20:28 amYes, we can trust the actual prices at which NPP sell electricity — that trust is based on real, verifiable figures. And this is normal and OK.The selling price of nuclear power already includes all operational and indirect expenses, including NPP profit and taxes that ultimately fund areas such as healthcare, education, and other social costs. In that sense, it provides a far more realistic measure than abstract metrics detached from market reality.Looking at real selling prices is a valid and practical approach — unlike theoretical constructs such as LCOE, which are mostly used to throw dust in people’s eyes rather than reflect actual economics.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 12:28:49 pm
content: How about Vogtle 3/4

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 12:46:34 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 09, 2025, 12:28:49 pmYes, that’s a good example. It’s basically the same story. Project costs are deliberately inflated so that private companies with political connections can profit. The real costs are much lower, but contracts are awarded to firms that have deals with officials to overcharge, and the excess is quietly shared between them. That’s what corruption really is — though in some countries they prefer to call it “lobbying”, which is considered legal, so it doesn’t sound quite as ugly.This is precisely what most governments are doing today, and it is exactly this system that leads to excessively high prices and taxes. And this is the reason why virtually everything the government does ends up being inefficient, with costs inflated to unreasonable levels. It inevitably leads to collapse.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 01:10:01 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 12:46:34 pmI wouldn't go so far. But if you look at the Hinkley point project in the UK, it is clear the costs of the project have been run up massively due to incompetence of the government bodies overseeing the project. Hanlon's razor:Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 01:19:46 pm
content: There are no truly incompetent people in government — the officials are often far more competent than one might assume. The problem is that this competence is frequently directed not toward achieving useful outcomes, but toward generating profit for themselves and their networks. And, of course, it takes considerable skill to arrange everything so that no legal or criminal repercussions can touch them — that kind of “expertise” is what they excel at.Sometimes officials may act not entirely of their own volition, but under external pressure. For example, if foreign intelligence services have compromising information on them, it can be used to coerce participation in schemes that generate profit for certain foreign companies.This highlights another problem within states: officials with criminal or compromised backgrounds can be highly vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors. Consequently, when a government wields unlimited power or operates as a de facto dictatorship, it can become a dangerous instrument in the hands of foreign intelligence services against its own population.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 01:34:18 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 11:51:45 amThe selling price for electricity is not telling anything about the costs. So the numbers may be real, but are also irrelevant. Power plants only have the choice of accepting the price and produce or not accept and not produce. Especially nuclear power are made to run 24/7 , so they have to take essentially any price, even if negative at times.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 01:47:31 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 09, 2025, 01:34:18 pmThat is not entirely true. There are often mechanisms in place to make sure a minimum price is paid. Many wind turbine installations operate this way; the operators/owners receive a guaranteed minimum price no matter what the spot price of electricity is. This is also likely for nuclear power plants. For example: the constructor and operator (EDF) of Hinkley Point C (in the UK) has negotiated a fixed, minimum price with the UK government. The problem with energy infrastructure is that the lifespans are extremely long and for commercial parties to embark on projects which where previously funded by governments, the commercial parties will need to have some form of guarantee that there will be an ROI.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 01:52:01 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 09, 2025, 01:34:18 pmYes, you are correct that NPPs are sometimes forced to sell electricity below their production cost. For example, there have been known instances where plants were effectively compelled to sell at around 0.0024 USD/kWh, which is unprofitable for them, but still acceptable. However, the mention figure — 0.013 USD/kWh — represents the price calculated based on the actual profitability point of the plant, taking into account profit, operational and indirect costs, including taxes (except VAT).

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 02:00:02 pm
content: RadiolistenerI think your wrong on several levels. I researched solar, ran all the numbers, tested some systems and it's superior to nuclear imo.For example many use a 25 year ROI which is bs. The solar panel is still producing 75% of it's original power and they they should use a 50 year ROI.The real benefit of solar is that I can buy everything out of China at half price, no subsidies and install it myself with no expensive contractors. So whatever your cost is I can do it for a 1/2 of the price amortized over 50 years. Obviously nobody can do this with fossil fuels or nuclear.As well, my house easily has enough surface area for the solar panels to provide all my power needs with no external supply or off grid. So at year 25 I move 25% of the panels from my house to my fence and buy 25% new panels for the house. I lose nothing, no recycling, but gain better efficiency and the old panels keep producing until year 75. Do the math, I pay 1/2 of your price for an off grid power generation system which effectively lasts a lifetime.Of course, the real kicker is I have a one time cost which never changes. When your power bill triples and quadruples in the near future to support failing infrastructure my costs remain the same. Also, when the grid does fail you will be sitting in a cold dark house wondering what to do and I will not. So it's about security and independence as much as the associated costs. You are helpless and totally dependent on others for energy while I am not. For me this is priceless.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 02:09:13 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 09, 2025, 02:00:02 pmYou are only looking at one facet of a complex system. For solar to be useful you need storage and / or backup. Best non-fossil fuel solution that is available (before 2050) for backup is nuclear. It is simple as that. In the long run (10 to 20 years) the generating price of solar is probably driven down to less than US$ / euro 0.01 per kWh while storage and backup will become a significant cost to the end consumer. Don't forget: in end what counts is what the end consumer pays.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 02:34:28 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 09, 2025, 02:00:02 pmYou make some valid points, and solar panels do have advantages for private households, but there are several important caveats:1) Solar panels cannot provide constant power 24/7. Their output fluctuates depending on day and night, seasons, weather conditions like rain or snow. The max power is limited and pretty expensive. While this may not be critical for a single household, it is a serious limitation for an economy or energy-intensive industries that require continuous, reliable high power.2) Solar panels can indeed appear attractive when you consider the generous subsidies and preferential treatment they receive. However, these benefits come at the expense of other energy sources and do not reflect the real efficiency or cost-effectiveness of solar power. Even if you buy it on aliexpress it still subsidized.3) The expected lifetime of a solar panel is likely overestimated. While some may function for decades, a realistic operational lifespan is more like 20–30 years, not 50.That said, solar panels do have clear advantages for a household, especially in situations like wartime, when the grid or substations may be damaged. They can provide some electricity for lighting or communication. But their utility is very limited — if substations and infrastructure are not restored, essential services like water supply, heating, or industrial production will fail, and eventually, you may be forced to leave your home.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 03:18:36 pm
content: RadiolistenerQuoteOther peoples needs aren't my problem, they can pay ever increasing prices and fees and support large corporations if they want. In fact, we have all the solar technology we need for anyone to go off grid and save a lot of money.QuoteEvery energy industry receives generous subsidies and preferential treatment. Your making false comparisons.In fact, half my power bill is maintenance and administration fees while the power is quite cheap. Why should I subsidize grid maintenance and a bunch of bean counters?. Is this not a large subsidy?, of course it is.QuoteYour wrong, the lifespan has been well established and proven for decades. The average is 1% power loss per year.I find the notion of throwing out solar panels after 25 years, still having 75% output, completely absurd. It's literally the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Why not line our fence with the old panels?. The cost is negligible and we can still get 75% output.Your also making false comparisons relating to older solar technology. For example, solar panel efficiency is increasing and the price point for solar panels and storage is falling rapidly. The fact is, nothing is cheaper than solar at this point and old technology is dead in the water. Sorry you lose and this is obviously the future.I think China is going to obliterate the competition. Very soon all their solar panel factories will be completely automated and solar powered. The only real input cost will be the material. Machines building other machine powered by the Sun... let that sink in.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 08:39:29 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 11:51:45 amSo why can't you provide any documents to link the selling price you claim to a business annual report or other similar costing to show that the selling price does profit? You've picked a number out and claim it represents specific things, but show nothing to support those claims.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 08:45:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 09, 2025, 01:47:31 pmAgreed, various forms of electricity generation (even some electricity consumers) at various times have been given guaranteed "strike" prices to underwrite their investment. Where this thread keeps falling apart is people claiming that subsidised price (or other investment/market interventions) should be ignored when looking at the total operating cost of the plant over its lifetime.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 08:50:56 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 09, 2025, 03:18:36 pmSolar being cheaper is geography dependent, there are some corner cases (small minority of the population) where that isn't true. The big change is that storage is cheaper and continuing to drop in price and batteries have passed hydro as the cheapest short term storage. Also demand side management will pickup some of the storage requirements as people on off-grid setups already do.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:22:35 pm
content: At a macro level, it's silly to consider a single or even dual power energy system. In the optimal locations, it is estimated that it would need to be overbuilt by a factor of 5, and there are still potential outages.When asked what to do with all that excess power when it's not needed, people say "oh, it's free energy to do X," which it isn't.And while nuclear is a great source to add to a mix, it's also the least carbon-intensive by a good margin. And as for killing people, I think Nuclear is about at a tie.Common sense has gone out the window.We don't even know what the margins are yet because our nuclear plants just keep going.... Recalculating..... Technology upgrades and fusion may even be more long-lived and durable. I, like the majority of the US, am happy to have it in our mix, along with the news of new facilities being built.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:35:10 pm
content: SomeoneThe supposed solar dilemma is not what most think imo.In fact, Texas which is a Republican state is #2 in solar production ready to overtake California for the #1 spot. The most Conservative provinces in Canada, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are ranked #1 and #2. Ergo, some may falsely claim the right are against solar but in fact we are installing solar much faster than anyone else in Canada and the U.S..So the question is why would some Republican/Conservatives be railing against solar when in fact we are installing it much faster than anyone else?.The answer is not that difficult to understand and relates to money and demographics. Most business people and right leaning rural folks like myself don't need a subsidy because I can write off the total investment anyways. So it's not a big deal to remove all subsidies and I would prefer a nice tax break across the board. Kind of like trump reducing renewable subsidies but giving his friends down in Texas installing solar at record rates a big beautiful tax break.So in my opinion the subsidy diatribe is a read herring of sorts. For example, as an energy consultant a friend wanted me to pitch solar to a very conservative oil field friend worth millions over a few beer in his garage. Of course he didn't hire me, cheap bugger, but he did install a 10MW solar farm 50 miles from my farm the next year. This was a hard core oil/gas man and it only took me a few beer over 30 minutes to show him the way forward. It's cool and the satisfaction of knowing I could enlighten him was worth a few beer and my time.My point is money talks bs walks, it's that simple.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:45:27 pm
content: tax break = subsidyIf it walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:49:32 pm
content: There’s an interesting article in today (Oct 9) business section of the New York Times about a business selling house-scale battery storage systems, suitable for exploiting pricing schedules (peak vs off-peak hours). Texas has such pricing options, and they are selling systems there to homeowners. The photo showed an outdoor unit comparable in size to a central a/c unit.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 09:52:45 pm
content: nctnicoQuoteBingo, we have a winner, well said.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:02:20 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on October 09, 2025, 09:49:32 pmThey sell these systems in the Netherlands as well but they don't make sense at all. ROI is typically decades and wildly fluctuating electricity prices aren't going to be around forever. The only people making money are the ones selling the batteries and operating the systems to keep track of pricing. It is like a casino: the house always wins. The NL government's consumer protection agency warns that home storage battery systems make no financial sense and notes sellers are typically scam artists.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:09:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 09, 2025, 10:02:20 pmI don’t have the numbers, but some of the Texas pricing schedules available as options to local customers may well be more extreme than in the Netherlands.Texas residents: please comment.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:22:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 09, 2025, 09:45:27 pmIn a way yes, but the effect is different. Tax breaks typically drive up the volume of the sales of the item.Subsidies typically drive up the price of the item. Sellers will advertise on the price after subsidy, and the subsidy often end up as extra profit at the seller, instead of tax rebate at the buyer. It's also described this way on the economics lessons.Plus, you know, removing tax is a good thing, since we have a too large goverment.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 10:24:10 pm
content: TimFoxQuoteIndeed, and I was pitching this concept to some investors years ago. Why generate power when we could make just as much money capitalizing on the difference between peak and average rates?. When researching the topic I found some corporations were literally charging 1000 times the rate per kWh in some instances. As a businessman my mind was racing at the endless opportunities. Why even invest in generation when we could make even more money on peak rates as storage?.This is where flow battery tech really comes into play imo. It literally destroys conventional battery tech and has nothing but potential. We could ask what is a battery?. So why be limited to the stored charge differential between two plates in a battery when we could store the charge differential in an an electrolyte constituting tens of thousands of gallons?. The answer seems obvious.

author: Electrodynamic
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 11:09:31 pm
content: nctnicoQuoteSo let me get this straight, your supposing that the power grid will some how sort out itself despite the unavoidable fact that as more periodic power sources such as renewables come on line the system will not become more variable?. In my opinion this displays a near complete misunderstanding of how our power grid actually works. FYI, as a Power Engineer we are the people responsible for running all the power generation systems which allows your quality of life to be possible. We could literally open a really big switch and your back in the stone ages tomorrow.I think it's comical, what do you think you would do if I cut off all your power tomorrow?. Most have no clue, no idea, and take everything for granted. They think, open a faucet and water comes out, turn on a switch and the light comes on. Completely oblivious to all the highly trained people and technology which makes everything they take for granted possible.In effect, I'm literally the guy who runs every power plant and grid on the planet and your bs doesn't fly.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 11:29:50 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 08, 2025, 12:11:07 pmBIG PICTURE, yes your pictures are sizeable but miss some of the important points.I've gone and collected the German data from SMARD (https://www.smard.de/en/downloadcenter/download-market-data/) so I could run some actual real world figures.Solar had a 20:1 variation seasonally (monthly averages), where as wind had a 7:1 variation... anti correlated! There are days without ""meaningful wind" but they are relatively short, infrequent, and non-consecutive periods that still contain some wind (days between hourly peaks below) quite different to bursts of high solar generation within months of low average solar.Checking different sized batteries to "firm" wind into a stable output, the economically optimal sized battery (if we assume the output must be dead flat hour by hour and spilled energy is worthless, ie make it look and work like a nuclear plant) is somewhere in a broad continuum between 8 and 12 hours of storage of peak (nameplate) generation. At those storage settings and discarding all spilled power entirely, the load factor of aggregate German wind power drops from 21% to 7%, mix in some solar and it comes back up.8 hours of storage is a little more expensive than wind alone, so doubles the cost, and with all that spilling you're needing to triple the over provisioning (21%/7%) for 6-7x the base cost of wind.Lets take a credible source:https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity.htmlWhich would put that deliberately misleading application of new build wind + batteries (masquerading as a nuclear plant and spilling most of their production) at 26-63c/kWh comparable to new build nuclear 13.6-49c/kWh. Not order of magnitude difference, not even double. Blend in some solar and it gets cheaper again.Data for a US grid region would be interesting to run through.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2025, 11:50:43 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 09, 2025, 11:09:31 pmWith some history on this poster, they are against variable energy pricing and believe consumers should not be exposed to the actual marginal cost of energy they consume and instead all consumers should see both a flat use tariff and it must be cheap (subsidised):Quote from: nctnico on December 27, 2024, 09:29:15 pmSiwastaja already called out that distraction:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/new-nuclear-plants-in-the-us/msg6062131/#msg6062131"unreliable" generation is so cheap it competes even if they spill significant (most!) of the power they could generate, the only economically rational outcome of that is to have a fluctuating market price so consumers (big and small) can find uses for that extra power. I'd rather leave the choice with individuals than force everyone to subsidise those who want electricity during times of higher cost.

author: Simmed
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 01:55:38 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on October 09, 2025, 12:46:34 pmsince i worked on some national level tenderi could atest to thatthere was a project to link wifi data for a special data purpose to connect special pieces of equipment spanning 16kmthe layout is standard, however the supplier company already knew what are the problemsthey do not solve it in the tender offerthey wait till it surfaces and pretend to offer "solutions"and by doing so inserting variation orders = government spend extra money to solve "fake problems"but doesnt the government have "experts"ahhh yes these consultants are there for the money as wellof course they will say "this is an unforeseen problem"behind the curtain, the consultant "pockets" are already satisfied pre-tender by the "equipment suppliers"*kaching*

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 01:23:18 pm
content: Quote from: Electrodynamic on October 09, 2025, 11:09:31 pmYour thoughts are jumping incoherently allover the place and you totally miss the message and on top of that you start shooting the messenger. Again: the NL government body for consumer protection says home storage batteries don't pay for themselves. So caveat emptor. End of story.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 03:11:56 pm
content: I suspect home batteries can pay for themselves if there was accurate accounting of cost.Home batteries are obviously the most expensive form of storage, but they can do something more centralised storage can not, decongest local low voltage distribution. Laying extra copper in existing neighborhoods is very very expensive.For larger batteries the same is probably true too for medium/high voltage. The net maintenance company says they want 200 Billion for more power lines, that buys 100s of millions of kwh of storage. That could completely even out power consumption in the netherlands across 24 hours, the existing capacity is more than doubled ... and all those batteries can do things power lines can't, they can reduce peak generation needs, shift solar power to night time and increase resilience.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 03:14:39 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 10, 2025, 03:11:56 pmBut you can reach the same by installing batteries in low voltage distribution stations. That gives a much better economy of scale compared to having batteries in homes.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 03:27:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 10, 2025, 03:14:39 pmThere are areas where the low voltage copper below the road is at its limit, batteries at the medium<->low voltage transformer don't help then.Instead of digging up the street so people can get 3x25A three phase to feed their heatpump, EV and induction hub, you can use home batteries so their peak load stays small and they can stick to 40A single phase. Probably cheaper for some areas overall.But the market/regulation isn't suited to find the lowest cost solution. Just like it vastly undervalues battery storage for medium/high voltage and overvalues new powerlines. Obviously windparks and new powerplants need some new powerlines ... but most of the 200 Billion Tennet wants for new power lines would be better spend on batteries.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 04:08:48 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 09, 2025, 11:29:50 pmI don't doubt that these are the numbers that you find online. Only, that somehow between 2022 and 2024, the price of every other energy price doubled.https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2021_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdfBiogas went from 15 cent tops to 32 cents. And the old one was 2022, where the price of gas peaked.There is no consideration for waste heat. 6 million homes are heated by that. What are they supposed to do if you turn off the power plant?You also don't consider electric cars. 5 million cars per year are sold in Germany, and the plan is to make them electric, I was calculating with extra 3-4% load per year, with modest usage of those cars. They are at 50% of total energy by renewable, and you want 3 times overprovisioning. This 50% took ~20 years to do. Also when you keep adding renewables at this scale, the cost go up, they don't come down. You run out of optimal sites and the utilization of new plans will be abysmal.While their government actually just said they have to scale back the plans otherwise they are going to loose elections because electricity is so expensive.And then you are 8 hours away from disaster and blackouts. The damage of the Spanish blackout was enough to cover the cost of a 2GW power plant. And you keep ignoring the premise that yes, LCOE nuclear is expensive, with the current legislation and badly planned financing. I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself over and over again TBH for you to just ignore it.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 04:43:07 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 10, 2025, 03:11:56 pmThey can, if well optimized for multi-markets; it's not a gold mine, but it can be made pay for itself during the lifetime of the batteries.Exact details vary depending on place, but we have been doing this spot price based optimization for some 1.5 years. Currently nearly 1000 or so battery customers totaling 5MW of power.Yes, as nctnico says the spot optimization never pays for itself (unless years like 2022 repeat all the time, which won't happen). So what we did next was to combine frequency containment markets. Unlike our competitors who went for the reserve market frenzy selling unapproved, non-working "reserve-only" batteries (then start product development after sales) we took the time to design for combined spot price (self-use) + reserve market combo, and of course get it approved before sales. So now suddenly combining these two resources, own spot price based optimizations + reserve markets, the payback time is in the same range of battery lifetime, maybe in a very good case you can actually earn something. But we need to keep looking at the markets and find new ways for our customers to get revenue out of their investment. And doing all that is a lot of work, meaning we take our share of the reserve market compensations.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 04:43:47 pm
content: Between 2021 and 2024 there was quite some change in the interest rate (near zero at 2021 and 4.5% in 2024). Both the renewables and nuclear have quite some upfront investment and thus capital costs. So the interest rate can change things a lot. Different sources are still effected differently.The German Government plans to slow down the expansion of renewables a little is because the grid was not upgraded as it should have been done. It is still a controversion plan and there is no direct control of what private investments are done.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 05:06:51 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 10, 2025, 04:43:07 pmI'm talking about the overall economics of what's a good investment for the nation though. Dutch grid has especially big problems with capacity, including at the low voltage level, where home batteries are the only type of battery which can help.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 05:13:25 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 10, 2025, 03:11:56 pmNot in the current market structure. You get taxed both if you charge it from the grid, and if you feed back to the grid.Quote from: nctnico on October 10, 2025, 03:14:39 pmBingo. Companies doing it will have a huge unfair advantage at taxation, they are probably going to get incentives to install it. And they just charge us more to have them install the battery.We'll never have it as good as for this few years with solar. Customers are always going to get screwed over by the utility company maffia.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 05:22:12 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 10, 2025, 05:06:51 pmYes, and if there is a need, there will be a way, and unless prevented by politicians, a market will form. It's the complex optimization: maybe grid-level frequency containment market is useful for its own purpose, but then doing that at a certain place detrimental to the whole if it providing the balancing powers risks overloading a link. (Grid-level or distribution level). A solution: market for everything; where balancing is most needed, highest bids will win, and multi-market optimizing solutions will provide what is needed because that gives most money. It's also self-regulating: some resource is scarce - thus it's expensive - people do that because they see the money - now it's not too scarce anymore. Build too much - some give up. Yes, it's harsh game. If you can be efficient and flexible, you will win. If you make big plans based on what the market looks today, implement it slowly and expensively, you will lose.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 05:34:18 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 10, 2025, 05:06:51 pmIMHO you are mistaken that having more electricity solves everything. It won't. Actually it is a mistake (made by politicians) trying to electrify everything; it is not the most cost efficient solution.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 06:50:45 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 10, 2025, 05:34:18 pmWithin that mistaken path there are still worse and better paths to take.Even if you used hydrogen/synthetic methane to get net zero heating in winter, it might still make sense to use electricity for the COP. When you make millions, a cogenerating SOFC really shouldn't be that expensive.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 09:42:29 pm
content: According to the weather forecast, there won't be much wind and solar generated next week where I live. Fortunately it's not going to be that cold, so not much heating is required. If this happened in January, it would be 10°C colder.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 09:58:59 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 10, 2025, 04:08:48 pmSo what are the "every other" energy sources that changed in price by such a large amount? Not nuclear, solar, or wind. Which is what the comparison here is about. You want to talk about fossil fuels, great you do that. Also noting the 2021 document you choose does not include Nuclear costing at all. In a thread about Nuclear costings...Quote from: tszaboo on October 10, 2025, 04:08:48 pmTruely waste heat is a very tiny percentage of all energy in the economy, and producing intentional heat is a poor efficiency when heat pumps can do the job and multiply the produced heat:https://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_149.shtmlQuote from: tszaboo on October 10, 2025, 04:08:48 pmSome countries are limited on space/resources and will have to decide how best to use it. But over to you to show some estimates of the total wind resoruce available and what that limit is rather than a fear mongering "its close, we don't have room for more" despite not knowing how close that is.Fraunhofer are happy to cite a wind industry analysis they co-operated in:https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-infothek/Presse-Medien/2022/flaechenpotenziale_windenergie_an_land.htmlhttps://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/redaktion/dokumente/publikationen-oeffentlich/themen/01-mensch-und-umwelt/02-planung/20220920_BWE_Flaechenpotentiale_Windenergie_an_Land.pdfWhich sees no significant constraints to Germany achieving electrical energy independence. I'd guess with the anticipated over provisioning and spilled energy that synthetic hydrocarbons would be viable to replace other energy imports too.Quote from: tszaboo on October 10, 2025, 04:08:48 pmYou repeat the same misleading and uninformed complaints. There is no 8 hour timed storage which stops, the costings are for adding 8 hours of storage for each unit of renewables production, to meet some arbitrary disingenuous operating regime that nuclear/coal proponents use as an argument against renewables, which on todays numbers also fails to hold water.If for some disingenuous reason you wanted 1GW of continuous power 24/7/365, over 10 years of real world german data that could be delivered by:14GW of nameplate wind + 110GWh of batteriesor10GW of nameplate wind + 2GW of nameplate PV solar + 96GWh of batteriesSo not "8 hours until failure" but ability to cover several days of zero production (which is its self a myth, some production continues along just fine). Real world, alongside the 1GW of guaranteed power there would be an average of 2GW of additional "free" unreliable electricity which addresses the expected demands for EVs (which add storage themselves and do not need charging every day).That 1GW of uninterrupted power could be delivered from renewables for around the same cost as Nuclear, in Germany where apparently renewables are not suitable and Dunkelflaute makes storage impractical... except if we actually check they aren't problems and renewables are economically viable competitors to Nuclear in Germany as they are in most places around the world.I'd love a source for the same data in the US grid regions, to check their differing suitabilities. But with them being geographically similar in size to Germany and further away from the poles, it should be easier.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 10:04:30 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 10, 2025, 09:42:29 pmCool story bro! Some small region is seeing some period of poor renewable production, in a small country. Meanwhile, large girds with geographic diversity are doing just fine despite the local variability.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 10:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 10, 2025, 10:04:30 pmThe blocking high is covering a fairly large region at the moment. Fortunately there is some wind, probably to our north, but it's nowhere near enough to meet demand, which is being covered by gas, nuclear, biomass and imports.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 10:44:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 10, 2025, 05:34:18 pmYes.My reply to this is not based on any data, but based on my overall gut instinct®™ I think it's correct. Or at least worth thinking about.Imagine flying into a major city in the midwest US in the wintertime. As you descend towards the airport you look down at the snow-covered earth at the thousands and thousands of dwellings, themselves all covered in snow. You kind of shiver inwardly as you realize just how cold it is out there: below zero (Fahrenheit). Brrrrrr.Now you think about all those thousands and thousands of homes, each needing to be heated for their inhabitants' comfort. How many BTUs of energy does that take?Currently most of that heat comes from burning something, mainly natural gas. (There may be a few older homes with oil-burning furnaces, like the one I grew up in near Chicago, but those must be few by now.) Some of them are electrically heated.But the idea of convertingallof those homes to electric heat?*Just how much energy are we talking about there?And add to that the burden of powering electric vehicles (also in the dead of winter, where the efficiency of lithium batteries drops dramatically), and now how much energy are we planning on providing here?Is this scenario even possible without building additional power plants (of whatever variety) every mile or so?Has anyone accurately even penciled this out to a first approximation?Does anyone really know what the hell we're doing here?*Even with the most efficient heat pumps available, mini-splits or whatever, not just good old-fashioned wasteful resistive heating.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2025, 11:05:21 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on October 10, 2025, 10:44:13 pmYes, linked in this thread already and linked many times on the forum:https://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtmlhttps://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_231.shtml

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:09:12 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 10, 2025, 11:05:21 pmWow, I can't believe you referenced someone who understands that using diverse energy sources, including nuclear energy and conservation, is the reasonable and correct way to go. I assume either you aren't familiar with his whole set of work or, more likely, you're just cherry picking since you haven't acknowledged that a diverse set of energy generation sources that may include nuclear is a logical and fitting overview at the macroscopic level.Mackay (R.I.P.) was an advocate for nuclear energy as part of a diverse mix of renewables and conservation. His work is a major driving factor in the UK's energy plans, which include atomic energy.Two particular points he made were:1. Using his per-person energy consumption figures, MacKay argued that no single renewable source can meet the UK's energy demands. He presented nuclear power as a proven, reliable technology that can generate electricity at the vast scale needed to replace fossil fuels and was a great fit for a model for the future of lower carbon.2. He demonstrated that nuclear power requires significantly less land to generate a given amount of electricity than renewable sources like solar and wind. For MacKay, the land footprint of renewable sources is a major limiting factor.Today'sUK's energy planwas built and substantially influenced by David MacKay's work and the "MacKay Carbon Calculator." And, as you might have guessed, includes substantial investment in building nuclear sources into the diverse plan.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:24:17 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 12:09:12 amYou can claim anything you like, but when its easily proven false:Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:59:09 amI've consistently said a diverse and mixed source of energy is the best way to go. People jump to extremes to try and prove some technology won't work, but even in the cases of obviously non-optimal highly contrived straw man demands (like 100% wind and no other generation sources) nuclear still looks bad!Adding more nuclear? seems stupid for the US when they already have a substantial fraction, and adding a higher percentage would cost more than alternatives.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:51:07 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 10, 2025, 09:58:59 pmYou mean like the weather. We showed that this happens, you keep ignoring it.Quote from: Someone on October 10, 2025, 09:58:59 pmLet's just use the real number. It's not 1GW, it's about 54 GW/hour average. And by your estimation, 96 * 54 = 5184GWh of battery storage capacity. Just to put this into context, currently there was 94 GWh of capacity added worldwide, so if Germany buys all the batteries made on the Earth for this reason, in about 55 years they can achieve this goal.https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-energy-storage-growth-upheld-by-new-marketsThat's with all the currently made batteries going into one country.I'm sure living on a gigantic continent with tiny population, this feels easy to solve.Quote from: Someone on October 10, 2025, 10:04:30 pmThis guy thinks that nuclear is expensive, but import is cheap...Nah, I think I'm done discussing this with you. 300% overprovision and several days of battery storage...

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:57:55 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 12:24:17 amLet's make sure we have this out in the plain open. The quote above proves that this person is just arguing for the sake of it.He lied by omission for the first 5 pages of this thread. Several hundred posts, many of which were his berating advocacy for nuclear energy.Then, back-handed and obviously begrudgingly has to admit the lie. As he claimed, plenty of folks in this thread are liars by omission; pot meet kettle.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:06:06 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 12:57:55 amYes indeed, by the looks of it, we are convincing., or he plays in a bad faith argument You need to build new ones because it takes time, and the old ones have limited lifetime.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:17:34 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 12:24:17 amYou've consistently done one thing. Claimed that nuclear energy isn't cost-effective when compared to large-scale PV. Even here in the post where you are supposedly refuting your stance you do the same tired things.There are many of us in this thread who suggested, reasonably so, that diversity is essential, that a lot of factors are important to consider, and that the cost of energy is only one factor. The "cheapest source" reason is the same reason that carbon-heavy sources have resisted changes, and you just want to commit the same sin.In your example, where you finally, and begrudgingly, admit to being wrong, you continue to claim nuclear doesn't make sense.Your view is that the US should let the plants we have age and be decommissioned. While the plan, in the US, UK, and Canada, is to build modern reactors to replace the aging fleet and keep the source in the diversity mix of energy.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:26:08 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 12:51:07 amIgnoring it? Like taking 10 years of real world data and finding out how much storage is actually required? Accounting for the actual weather seen by given specific location that was said to be a problem for renewables. Storage needs to support 100% renewables are smaller than most people think, I find that, other reputable sources find that.Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 12:51:07 amThose figures are for the disingenuous case of insisting that renewables must be costed with storage to appear like a nuclear or coal plant, which it can and costs comparable or less than nuclaer. Less total is needed for some other mix including hydro, other storage, other generation sources.Equally silly claims about scaling of Nuclear can be made: "but but but that would need more fuel production than occurs today" just the same as scaling up any of these possible sources of energy.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:30:22 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 12:57:55 amQuote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 01:17:34 amLets see, page 1:Quote from: Someone on September 28, 2025, 02:46:21 amI've been pretty consistent.and consistent in pointing out your propaganda and lies, backed with links out to reputable sources which show balanced and truthful information.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:41:01 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 01:26:08 amI scaled your numbers, but instead of using arbitrary 1GW, I calculated with Germany's actual electricity usage. And you still try to use creative accounting, where nuclear needs to borrow money up front (make sure the bank is profitable) and pay back in 20 years, while the lifetime is 60-80 years of the plant. For solar, let's ignore storage cost or even feasibility.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 01:53:12 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 01:41:01 amThey're on a per unit basis so comparison can be made between different choices being added incrementally. If you want to add some wind and storage that looks and works like a nuclear or coal plant (from the grids perspective) it can be done similar or cheaper in cost to new build Nuclear.The numbers for that extreme case are a strawman toy, which is pushed by fossil and nuclear proponents to make out that renewables aren't cost effective. Their strawman doesnt even work on the economic side anymore! The cost effectiveness of wind is widely known and supported, even including "firming"/storage costs (killing off your complaints about not accounting for variability/weather).Global grid wide composition is another analysis again, which can use the interplay between different sources to their best advantage (hydro can cover an awful lot of the several day duration storage needs). A 100% wind + batteries grid is as stupid as a 100% Nuclear grid as I keep saying.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:09:12 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 01:30:22 amThis is what people like you do. You can claim others are doing what you are doing. You need to look up propaganda; it's what you've been doing from post one.I posted my excitement and appreciation that the US has started building nuclear energy plants again. Is that so hard for you to understand?At this point, to be clear, you 100%, without reservation, believe that nuclear energy is a valid and good source of energy generation to include in a diverse energy plan. We can assume you agree with that, given that you are claiming that's been your position all along.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:13:16 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 01:53:12 amNah man, you flipped the script halfway. Let's not pretend that you weren't advocating for 100% renewable. I'm glad that we were able to convince you, but now you are just gaslighting us, changing what we were advocating for only nuclear.Quote from: Someone on September 30, 2025, 11:11:25 pm

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:25:04 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 02:13:16 amYou've quoted me suggesting a mix, which in many regions is cheaper than adding Nuclear in (geography dependent). Right there is the original framing "even being obtuse and insisting on only one generating technology and one storage technology, still cheaper". So I'm not flipping the table or radically changing tack, but instead being incredibly consistent. Also keep trying to steer it back to the US because of those geography dependent issues....

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:41:30 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 02:25:04 amOk let's pretend this isnt childish and keep it to the US. How is a country supposed to keep it's nuclear arsenal, the nuclear aircraft carriers operational without having a backbone economy of some production in power plants. Let the companies go out of business, or spend almost the same amount just as the military spending?

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:43:15 am
content: Back over a week ago I wrote and asked:Quote from: kite31 on October 03, 2025, 12:58:28 amSince then, I do not recall seeing any proponent of new nuclear put a number on their expectation for what might comprise a "mix", nor setting parameters for what countries in which any particular mix might be relevant. If you have, please refer me to your post so we may have a sensible discussion.There is little point to prancing about over "more of this less of that" without either a target or expectation, at least in general terms. If you are unable or unwilling to give clarity to and then defend your expectations, then your posts will be of little value.edit:typo

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:48:33 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 02:13:16 amPerfectly summed up! I really wish I'd have considered the gaslighting term for my post. It perfectly describes what he's doing.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 03:05:54 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 02:41:30 amI just quoted this again for you (and Cyclotron forward dated it to presend like its new/changing position)Quote from: Someone on October 01, 2025, 11:59:09 amAgain something I've been very consistent on, life extension and maintaining existing nuclear generation is cheap and a good idea (it will cost Germany $$ for their political choice to turn off their Nuclear fleet early).If you want to maintain Nuclear weapons, then that is an external income/profit source for Nuclear generation which makes the energy it produces cheaper (and not scaleable to larger share or transferable to other situations/countries) and a cost allocated to defence. The US isn't complaining they need more nuclear weapons materiel so why add more Nuclear to the mix? The economics don't stack up. Perhaps even reduce their Nuclear generation share as plants retire. How much is optimal for any specific situation? I need hourly production and consumption data over long periods to be able to work that out more accurately for my estimates.Perhaps you can find some US data to show how many reactors they need to support their weapons stockpile?

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 03:23:27 am
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 03:05:54 amAnd the gaslighting continues. Half-truths, cherry-picking, and so on.Just admit it. Besides you're general disdain for the US, you're totally against having new nuclear energy as part of an energy plan in the US. You don't believe that nuclear is a good source of low-carbon energy for future projects.You want people to think you're reasonable and have supported nuclear, but you omit the full truth. You begrudgingly admit it makes sense in the mix now, but you're totally against any new builds. You know, that lie by omission thing you like.Go on and get back to the cheap cheap cheap cheap; Like a little bird.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 05:03:06 am
content: Quote from: kite31 on October 11, 2025, 02:43:15 amFor the US NREL had a well balanced look at possible options:https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdfLowest cost option was to reduce the share of Nuclear power. Other interesting points in that analysis showed: grid scale PV solar in a 100% carbon neutral grid using similar land area as existing coal mines, most storage being met with electric vehicles (transport being a very significant fraction of overall energy use and few vehicles needing their full capacity at any time), accepting spilled energy production rather than uneconomic increasing of storage or transmission infrastructure, and "real" energy prices would be higher than in recent decades.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 08:11:44 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 03:23:27 amI don't think being mean is helpful. he was arguing from the same position as I was a few years ago. I was working for a company dealing with solar power, I saw how cheap and potent it was, and wanted to place that everywhere, without seeing the whole picture. You can find posts from me here on this forum where I advocate for way too much solar in the energy mix. And I saw the numbers and changed my mind in the meantime. But I still don't think solar is a bad idea, and everyone who can should install panels on their roof.You can also see me argue for P2G, and having a disagreement whether it should be hydrogen or methane. Again, through my job, I deal with electronics that has to go into Hazloc/ATEX zones, and see how incredibly dangerous hydrogen could be. So I'm not a fan of that. And methane eceonomy already exist. I had many argument about it with nctnico for example. We disagree, maybe if he would see my points clearly we would agree.But when we argue about this, you have to understand that we are on the same side, and we want things to improve. We only disagree on how. Someone wanted to save face, let him. Bit also you could be a bit nicer. And in case I'm the ahole about something please call me out on it.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 08:45:25 am
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 01:17:34 amConsidering this, what is the scheduled shutdown of the old plants?How does it compare to the new capacity being built?Like, in a 10 year forecast is it going to increase or decrease the capacity?

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 08:50:57 am
content: 100% and even 50% nuclear is not practical as a global solution - there is just not enough affordable uranium around for conventional reactors.So conventional nuclear is limited to a small fraction, maybe 20%. This would also avoid much of the over-production at night problem. In a mix there is still the issue that a large part of the time the market price would be rather low and nuclear thus not very economic.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 09:01:11 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 08:45:25 amI am curious to know your view on this, tszaboo?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 09:04:04 am
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 11, 2025, 08:50:57 amClearly not, especially if you consider handig the technology to countries that don't have it now. There are so many countries with a revolving door of dictators, they shouldn't have gotten the technology for gunpowder, yet alone this.Quote from: kite31 on October 11, 2025, 09:01:11 amI didn't look into this, that's why I'm asking.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 09:44:35 am
content: Net zero with renewables/hydrogen-storage impossible? Not nearly as impossible to deal with as the demographic collapse and other components of peak everything.Either society comes together to use all it's resources and productivity to solve its problems, or it will collapse. The economics don't matter, all these changes are so big and so fast it's going to be a question of central planning and what's possible within the resources available. With a WW2 level of effort, renewables/hydrogen can easily work. If we can't make the choices and sacrifices needed, we won't be able to deal with the much bigger problems either.

author: kite31
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 09:46:13 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 09:04:04 amGood luck with that. When I asked Cyclotron directly the same question, and suggested I expected a base of about 10%, he promptly [said he] put me on his ignore list rather than try to answer. That was 30 September. I trust he is keeping his word. It amuses me.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 11:44:38 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 08:11:44 amTo you, it may appear "mean". If you feel that way, excuse me, I was frustrated.I have said I support and am excited about renewables. I've even tried to talk about my plans for PV at my home. But because I'm also enthusiastic about the building of new nuclear facilities in the US, this person has consistently attacked me and mischaracterized my position.Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 11:54:29 am
content: Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2025, 09:44:35 amIf you're goal is truly net zero, then arguing against nuclear is counterproductive. Just open a search and enter "What energy source has the least carbon footprint?" I expect the answer to that question to change.In fact, on the scale of a project that you wish, nuclear plants built in a facility to produce renewable components 24/7 would be one optimal way of achieving such a goal.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:19:27 pm
content: Quote from: Cyclotron on October 11, 2025, 11:54:29 amNuclear doesn't solve grid-expansion/residential-heating (tied at the hip), nuclear doesn't solve transportation. Beyond energy, it does not solve anything and creates some new problems. It doesn't put the impossibility of the puzzle in another order of magnitude of impossibility.Honestly I think AI saving us from ourselves is the only way civilisation is going to be preserved, but if I'm going to live long enough to be surprised by humanity getting together and getting things done ... nuclear vs. renewable+hydrogen is just minutia in the scale of the problem. Our whole civilisation is non sustainable and electricity generation is the least of the problem.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:46:02 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2025, 12:19:27 pmI don't know that humans can be saved. The universe is hostile to our existence. There are some pretty fantastically bleak outlooks. The world has converted to lower-carbon energy faster than I and many might have expected. And it is on a sound footing to continue and accelerate. Humans are very adaptable, and I am optimistic that we will do ok.I just don't think of it as "nuclear vs. renewables+hydrogen". We should use all of our tools. All energy sources cause problems. Nuclear energy's issues are well understood and appear to be manageable given its history. It is also a source that can provide compact energy to areas that other low-carbon sources can't. That's always my stance. A reasonable mix. One day, maybe no nuclear fission.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 12:58:21 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on October 11, 2025, 12:19:27 pmActually, there is huge potential in nuclear to solve some of these problems. Molten salt cooled reactors could be more stable than water cooled ones. With the storage of coolant and overprovisioning the electricity generation, you can store energy, quite a lot, and cheaper than a battery AFAIK. So the reactor is small, and it runs 100%, either heating the storage or directly generating electricity.Waste heat can be used in district heating. Requires secondary and tertiary loop, because "radioactive water" would be a the biggest crashout by people who don't understand things.Or it produces superheated steam, that can be used in chemical processes, and not only electricity generation. Here is someone claiming that it can decompose CO2:https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/06/thermal-decomposition-of-co2-with.htmlYou can store the output of a gas fired power plant, that gets used when weather requires it, and decompose the output into methane when the weather is good.These can be carbon neutral processes.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 02:01:34 pm
content: IMHO new nuclear technologies are at least 50 years away from mass deployment. Keeping in mind the dot at the horizon at 2050 (less than 25 years away), focus needs to be put on technologies which can be build at a large scale within 25 years which means that any solution that is being considered needs to be at a mature stage right now so it can be mass deployed in the next two decades.edit: typo

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 03:25:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 11, 2025, 02:01:34 pmIt depends on which new nuclear technologies are being discussed. I also am not sure what you mean by "mass deployment." What I call mass deployment isn't what I'd recommend or would expect.SMRs are already online, and more are being built. The US should have SMRs online and provide power by 2030. Fusion reactors aren't expected to produce significant power till the mid-2030s. Shidaowan HTR-PM is an online pebble bed reactor.There are about 400 reactors in the world. I don't know if we should build to have more than 400 or more than the output of the existing fleet. We should be building to replace the aging fleets and modernizing the technology. There are many places where SMRs will help eliminate or substantially reduce high-carbon sources when renewables aren't feasible for various reasons.Still, there's a lot of infrastructure to convert if you really have to electrify the whole of humanity's energy needs. The number of gas/oil/coal/wood used in homes for heating is substantial. Where I grew up, many homes still use wood fireplaces and stoves for heat. When I recently had my home's HVAC system replaced, I chose a high-efficiency heat pump system with a natural gas backup. To my surprise, both produce condensate, and I had to find a solution for it as they freeze up in the winter.Will it be 2075 before the world can build more of the modern designs?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 03:57:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 11, 2025, 02:01:34 pmWell good thing then that they started experimenting with this in the 1906s then, because then we can deploy them just now.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_ExperimentI guess then we can cross out these arbitrary numbers, and build reactors like these:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR-600

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 04:07:08 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on October 11, 2025, 03:57:19 pmThis - and many other "new" nuclear tech seems to be in infinite cycle of "being released in next 10-20 years" since 1960's. 60 years passed, but the target timeframe is always constant offset away from the current time, with never any proof or realistic plans of anything being deployed, beyond test projects.Do your conclusions.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 04:18:43 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on October 11, 2025, 03:05:54 amSo the maintenance of weapons stockpile is 60B/year. Building a few plants at 6-10B each over a period of 7-10 years is like a rounding error. I don't think they will publish BOM of the maintenance for obvious reasons, correct me if I'm wrong.

author: Cyclotron
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 04:19:38 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on October 11, 2025, 04:07:08 pmI don't know if conclusions can be made without a lot of assumptions. There are modern reactors online now. Or are you only pointing to the Sodium-cooled reactors?There have been examples of sodium and demonstrators online for some time. Oakridge, I think, was the longest-running one. The only prediction I've ever seen for their deployments are for the 2040s. Are you aware that they were planned earlier than that but didn't pan out?

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 11, 2025, 07:18:30 pm
content: The sodium fast breeders essentially only make sense in combination with reprocessing of the fuel to recover the plutonium and thus use them as breeders. The sodium cooled reactors have a history of quite some minor incidents that require expensive repairs and long downtimes, especially in France. In the US they has a more serious accident with a fast breeder. AFAIK the stability margins are quite a bit smaller, so that safty is more of a concern. In Germany they never started and scapped a ready build reactor because of safety concerns that come up when ready.AFAIK the bigger problem was that the fuel reprocessing turned out more expensive and dirty (e.g. emissions of technetium) than promissed. Details of the issues with reprocessing are however not public as its linkt to proliferation. The US stopped commercial reprocessing and thus breeder reactors because of proliferation. With some additional uranium finds in the 1970s /80s the interest in breeders got less, though the Uranium reserves are still limited.There are a few, especially Russian sodium reactors running. Chances are the Chinese one is a derivative from that, also getting fuel from Russia.One of the issues is a kind of corrosion from thermal gradients - so only time will tell how long the reactors last and how reliable they work.Other reactor concepts, like molten salt, bebble bed, molten lead cooled, gas cooled were tested but were more failures compared to the classic BWR/PWR. I don't have much hope for a better alternative to the classic ones - maybe in a fast breader, as the sodium cooled versions are not without issues.There are some campains to get research financing, but nothing really serious. Much is still at the level of promissing everything to attrackt research money, even if they should know that it will likely not workout. Much is still open and unknown with hardly a chance of success. I am also highly sceptical with the promisses from SMRs: reactors don't scale well to smaller size. They need more fuel and produce more waste.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2025, 12:42:36 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 11, 2025, 07:18:30 pmAlso Germany, Japan, US and Russia ... they all leaked and burned. But finally Russia just doubled up on the parts which leaked most, so they could switch over during the repairs ... and immediately all the nukees say "see Sodium works". Russia is trying to construct commercial scale lead based fact reactors though, which seems unnecessary if sodium really worked well for them.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2025, 11:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on October 11, 2025, 07:18:30 pmRecovering plutonium is not the only utility of a breeder reactor. A breeder (or "burner") reactor can convert transuranic waste into fission products. So instead of storing waste for 100,000 years, you only need to store it for 1,000 years.Therefore a breeder (or "burner") reactor makes sense for anyone who operates a nuclear power industry.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2025, 07:48:42 am
content: For those who have seen propaganda, fear-inducing videos with dramatic music and a printer portrayed as the sole indicator of reactor status, here is a more factual perspective: a video tour of the Chernobyl plant.It shows the control panels of Reactor 3 (timestamp 6:34), which is similar in design to Reactor 4, the reactor core of Reactor 3 (timestamp 18:00), and the computer “Skala” (timestamp 21:12) that was previously misrepresented in propagandistic clips as the sole monitoring device.The video also shows the control panel of Reactor 4 (timestamp 10:40), although all instruments have been removed. To get a better understanding of its original layout, it is more informative to examine the Reactor 3 panel, which has been preserved intact. The video further explains that after the accident, the remaining reactors were modernized and safety systems were significantly upgraded at great expense. Nevertheless, the plant was ultimately shut down purely for political reasons under external pressure.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 13, 2025, 09:45:24 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on October 12, 2025, 11:15:56 pmRecycling the transuranic elements still needs reprocessing and would be more side effect of recovering the plutonium. With usually high burn up of the fuel recovering plutonium can be even more effective than with thermal reactors. Plutonium from normal operation would be far from weapons grade. AFAIK the fast reactors need a rather high fissile concentration and the time the fuel is used is often more limited by the cladding than the fuel itself. Used fuel from a fast reactor would contain about as much transuranics as the fuel send in. In it true breeder it could be even more.A fast reactor without reprocessing makes essentially no sense. The main point is to use the fuel over many cycles.One may still have a reactor that produces slightly less plutonium (like 90%) than it consumes and thus not a true breeder.Reprocessing is usually not perfect and some of the transurancis still end up in the waste stream (e.g. together with rare earth elements). So the transuranics are not fully consumed, just reduced to maybe 10% depending on the quality of reprocessing.In principle already conventional thermal reactors with reprocessing and MOX (or similar) fuel can recycle some of the transuranics and this way reduce them - though to a more limited degree. An advantage of fast reactors is that they can get away with less clean fuel and thus a bit cheaper reprocessing than for recovering plutonium for use in thermal reactors.There are also a few long lived fission products (e.g. technetium) - so it depends on the accaptable level if 1000 years are enough, it may still need 10000 years, or a small farction of waste that still wants isolation for very long time. The reprocessing mixes the waste with additional materials / chemicals and thus more overall waste volume and different waste streams.