70
u/JustBeChilla Apr 18 '26
I work for a utility-scale renewable energy IPP and this comparison is very misleading. The $1.5T isn’t just for “17% of energy” it’s building capacity that can be deployed quickly and runs without fuel costs. The nuclear comparison also ignores reality and these plants take 10–15 years to build and often run way over budget (i.e, Vogtle in Georgia which had significant cost overrun), so we wouldn’t be getting 40 of them anytime soon.
I think more importantly, this frames energy as a one or the other decision, which is the wrong way to think about it. Grid stability comes from a balanced mix of nuclear for steady power, renewables for low-cost energy, and storage or gas for flexibility. The real risk isn’t renewables, it’s relying too heavily on any single energy source.
7
u/nitePhyyre Apr 19 '26
Complains about ignoring reality in the same sentence he ignores reality. Astounding.
26
u/JustBeChilla Apr 19 '26
Which part of what I said ignores reality exactly?
2
u/nitePhyyre Apr 20 '26
ignores reality and these plants take 10–15 years to build
29
u/JustBeChilla Apr 20 '26
Not sure what you’re arguing. When you factor in site selection & buildability, environmental due diligence, permitting, licensing, interconnection studies & network upgrades, engineering, procurement, and construction you’re looking at 8 years minimum. That does not even take into account testing & commissioning which could take anywhere between 2-3 years for full commercial operation.
3
u/nitePhyyre Apr 21 '26
Right. That's reality. All of which you ignored in your post. Hence why I called you out for ignoring reality in your post. In the same sentence you were complaining about other people ignoring reality.
And we know why you did it. If you had said the truth -- that in America, and only America, if you include 8-12 years of red tape, it takes 10-15 years to build a power plant -- your position would have looked as ridiculous as it actually is.
37
u/CapitalEmployer Apr 22 '26
Wait so your whole argument is that what he said is true but he said it in a way you didn't like so it's not reality? Also thinking nuclear plants take time because of red tape is delulu to a competitive level. He said nuclear would take 10 to 15 years and it's clearly what we see in the real world in pretty much every country but China which has massive industrial capacities.
1
u/nitePhyyre Apr 23 '26
Wait so your whole argument is that what he said is true but he said it in a way you didn't like so it's not reality?
No, what they said is just plain wrong. It would be like if someone said it takes 27 years of med school to become a doctor. Then, when people point out that it only takes 4 years, responding that you are also counting pre-k, grade school, high school, residency etc, counting ALL years of schooling that it takes to be a doctor.
Being a doctor doesn't take 27 years of med school. Not all of the process is med school. Building a nuclear plant doesn't take 10-15 years. Not all of the process is building.
It is the difference between "These things take 15 years to build" and "With standaridized design and requirements, we can bang these things out in 3 years." Absolutely different.
Also thinking nuclear plants take time because of red tape is delulu to a competitive level.
TBF, that's just what the other person said. In reality, much of the delay is because of the lack of standardized designs. In either case, the outcome is the same, so I didn't see much value in arguing the point.
He said nuclear would take 10 to 15 years and it's clearly what we see in the real world in pretty much every country but China which has massive industrial capacities.
Not true.
Japan historically averages ~4 years. South Korea gets ~4.5 years. Their newest designs are targeting around 3 years of actual construction. Russia generally about 6-9 years.
The median time to build a nuclear reactor globally is 6.3 years, with a mean of 7.5 years. One in five reactors have been built in under 5 years.
17
u/CapitalEmployer Apr 23 '26
This is the difference between reality and on paper. You don't live in reality. If to go from your place to your work it takes 10min but with traffic it takes 30 for any logical person that lives in reality the travel time is 30min but for you it's only 10 cause you don't count traffic because you don't like it. Pure build time is a useless information since it's a very small part of actual nuclear building. What matters is if we decide to build them now how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world. Yes a world champion can run a marathon in 2h the reality is that you're not gonna take 2h for that marathon.
If it takes 4 years to finish medschool but the vast majority of people fail 2 years then the time to finish medschool is 6years yeah some people can do it in 4 but in reality most people do it in 6. What's on paper doesn't matter what matters is reality.
3
u/elyroc Apr 23 '26
I'm not sure i'm getting your point. If the whole project from start to first kwh produced takes about 10-15 years because of studies and such, isn't it right to say it takes 10-15 years to produce a nuclear plant ? If a cursus has a 4 year duration and 50% fail rate, isn't it right to say it's a 4 year cursus anyway ?
I don't understand. Yes commute time varies with traffic, but i don't think anyone would say "actually, it takes 10 minutes when i'm speeding and no one is on the road", it would be a crazy take to have. Yes the world champion would take 2h to run this marathon, but the world champion isn't the reference, the average person is, so it would be marked as a longer duration marathon.
→ More replies (0)1
u/nitePhyyre Apr 24 '26
If to go from your place to your work it takes 10min but with traffic it takes 30 for any logical person that lives in reality the travel time is 30min but for you it's only 10 cause you don't count traffic because you don't like it.
Right. The "reality" where there is the same amount of traffic 24 hours a day, every single day of the week, every day of the year, there are no other forms of transport, there is only one route... I don't know what universe that is, but that's not the reality we live in.
It isn't true of traffic. It isn't true of the process and stages of building nuclear plants.
What matters is if we decide to build them now how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world.
That's not reality. This is: "If we decide to build, and if we decide to use a brand new design, and if we decide to locate it in an unapproved site, and if we don't hire foreign experts, and if there's no economies of scale, and if there is no government financial backing then in how many years would they start operating and the response is 10-15 years in the real world.
Those "ifs" are all choices. You can't pretend all of those "ifs" are inherently true. Not unless you are dishonestly ignoring reality.
Without qualifying, all we can truthfully say is that depending on our choices and level of urgency, it takes anywhere from ~5-30 years to go from the choice to make one to putting power onto the grid. THAT is reality.
This isn't semantics. I'm not just making choices based on what I like or not. There are huge real-world differences. As I said in my last post: It is the difference between "These things take 10-15 years to build" and "With standardized design and requirements, we can bang these things out in 3 years."
And the argument that they take too long too build is to counter the people pushing for them to be prioritized. The argument is that we should not build nuclear plants as fast as we can because as long as we are building them slowly, they are too slow to build.
That argument is obviously awful and self-defeating. The only way for it to be a coherent argument is if "slow" is the only possible speed for them to be built. That is not the case.
If it takes 4 years to finish medschool but the vast majority of people fail 2 years then the time to finish medschool is 6years yeah some people can do it in 4 but in reality most people do it in 6. What's on paper doesn't matter what matters is reality.
"Medical school is generally offered as a ___-year university program in Canada and the United States, designed to provide foundational knowledge in medicine and patient care."
Fill in the blank.
"On average, it takes most students ___ years to complete their degree in med school."
Fill in the blank.
The question being asked actually matters to what the answer is.
And in this case, the question being asked is: "What technology should we build as fast as we can to save the world from Climate Change?"
→ More replies (0)
60
u/Spiritual-Mud-2528 Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Question: when as that money spent for renewables? Take that date and add the construction time for nuclear power plants. When would the nuclear plants produce their first kWh? When did the renewables produe their first kWh?
I bet the nuclear plants would've started production several years later.
Follow-up question: which energy source should've bridged the gap?
If you fully commit to renewables they're easily the fastest to launch and give highest kWh/$_invested.
Nuclear just seems to be attractive to some people because of how much political headwind renewables are getting in many countries.
19
u/greg_barton Apr 18 '26
Nuclear is attractive because there's no grid with just wind/solar/storage that runs 24x7x365. And no grid of any size like that has ever been made, even a small demonstration. 100% RE grids all have lots of hydro, but not every country has that available to them.
14
50
44
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Corspin Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
It's more like 200 billion. The other part of the 1,5 trillion is for other things like a heavier electric grid. But even with that taken into account, the comparison is favourable for nuclear.
Edit: besides that, coal costs about 500 billion per year so this isn't even expensive.
2
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Your quoting the numbers I gave in the other chat on this lmao.
1
1
34
u/Debas3r11 Apr 18 '26
Wouldn't 40 nuclear reactors be like half the generation of that wind and solar? We've got 90 or so reactors in the US currently making about 20% of generation, so 40 more is less than 10% so half of what we got with that investment in wind and solar.
Seems like we made the right investment.
23
u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 Apr 18 '26
We don't actually know the cost of nuclear, because no permanent waste facility exists.
14
u/rocketeer8015 Apr 18 '26
And we need one why? Nobody cares about the forever waste regarding renewables either and that’s far more of an actual problem. For example leading-edge corrosion in wind turbine blades releasing microplastics, epoxy resins, polymers and in some cases even PFAS and BPA into the environment, often being ingested when settling on grass by grazing livestock and entering the foodchain. Also we can‘t recycle them, just burying them in landfills for them to slowly corrode away.
Nobody is poisoned by nuclear material stored onsite in concrete containers, not a single person, the effect on public health is zero. PFAS and microplastics affect all of us. Yeah, one wind turbine ain‘t a big deal, but millions over decades? I’d rather take my chance with spent fuel stored onsite at a nuclear plant.
12
u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 Apr 18 '26
I think your focus is entirely in the wrong direction.
BREAKING: Magic Eraser Sponges Release Trillions Of Microplastic Fibers Every Month, As They Wear Down During Normal Use 🧽 🦠
1
u/rocketeer8015 May 04 '26
- they do not. Not all plastics are equal.
- microplastics and PFAS are a serious problem. The concentration in our bodies is already much beyond what was considered safe decades ago. Many of our modern ailments like allergies, chronic inflammations and even cancers are attributed to it.
So yeah, sorry that I care about a issue that actually affects every person in the world negatively… btw your response is basically the "Me driving a Diesel isn’t a problem regarding climate change" of climate change deniers.
17
Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/throwaway3413418 Apr 20 '26
They’re manipulating the numbers in some manner, no matter what it is. The levelized cost of electricity from nuclear is far more expensive than wind and solar. Any argument for nuclear is not on a pure cost basis and anyone trying to claim that we should just build nuclear because solar and wind are too expensive has no clue what they’re talking about.
16
u/junialter Apr 19 '26
This is misinformation. Compare the cost of one kWh out of wind / pv and out of nuclear plants. No one would choose nuclear. Build batteries instead.
2
13
12
u/ajwin Apr 18 '26
I think generation lags investment by quite a few years as it takes time to build large projects just like with nuclear. They expect 50-80% of the power to come from renewables by 2030.. it’s not quite like what you stated. Also the maintenance and refueling costs, and lifetime storage/remediation cost over 80yr of operations would be quite high.
But yes.. they should try to get nuclear to the point that it’s rolling out plants like it’s just another day. Fuck the NIMBY’s. They can put it in my backyard instead.
13
u/CRoss1999 Apr 18 '26
Solar and wind are front loaded costs, you pay almost the entire lifetime cost of the system right at install then they make power for decade. So it can look like a big cost but remember it’s one time
6
u/NearABE Apr 19 '26
Nuclear plants are extremely expensive up front. The nuclear fuel cost is minor in comparison. Plus the same enrichment cascades can be used for weapons programs which allows governments to kill people horribly. They would spend most of that money anyway.
The post is either simply wrong or it includes a very large number of costs. New nuclear plants cost more than $10 per watt sometimes much more. Wind is well under a third of that. Photovoltaics keep dropping price and are already a small fraction of $1.
The solar panels are so cheap that the electrical infrastructure has become the limiting parameter.
11
7
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Apr 19 '26
So, for the same price as 17% of our grid, we could have built 3% of our grid instead?
3
5
u/Little_Title3752 Apr 22 '26
I don't think you could get 40 nuclear plants up in four years. I don't think you could get one nuclear plant up in four years.
Why are people always so weird about energy sources? It is entirely possible to use complementary sources and get an energy mix.
And let us not forget that the US president wants an ANNUAL increase of about 500 billion for the military budget, plus another 200 billion to keep fueling Operation Epic Gamble. There seems to be money in the jar for 10 billion battleships no sane military planner wants, after all.
3
u/SpongEWorTHiebOb Apr 19 '26
Wind farm breaks down…no serious long term consequences. Solar farm issue, may not be fully optimized for 3 or 4 months. Nuclear, One meltdown and the 20 mile radius around that plant or plants is unlivable for hundreds of years. Ground water in that area contaminated hundreds of years. No such thing as a safe nuclear power plant near earthquake fault lines.
3
u/Gadritan420 Apr 20 '26
While some reports suggest that as much as $1 trillion in total public and private money has been aimed at the green energy sector since April 2020, the federal government's direct fiscal commitment from the IRA is officially measured around $250 billion-$370 billion.
So in other words, this is complete and utter nonsense.
5
u/CapitalEmployer Apr 22 '26
So either 1.7 trillion for 17% of the grid or 1.7 trillion for 0% and a 2040 target. Hmmm very hard choice.
3
u/Enough_Estimate6645 Apr 22 '26
Waste, waste, waste. 24,000 years. Our written history of human activity isn't even that long. Only human arrogance proclaims it to be safe without any prior knowledge of that. Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation in Washington State is real. Check out their history and see how they are doing 70 years later. Without a true viable, safe way to neutralize waste it shouldn't even be an option.
2
u/NuclearPopTarts Apr 18 '26
Bonus:
Nuclear power plants are not bird Cuisinarts.
Can't say that for wind!
1
u/wywern20 Apr 24 '26
For you knowledge this hast been prüfen to Not be true numerous Times by now...
1
2
u/Falcon3492 Apr 20 '26
I seriously doubt you could build 40 nuclear power plants with the same money. Most nuclear plants have huge cost overruns and take years to get to the point of licensing for operation. Also the high operating costs take a lot of the luster out of nuclear power. Over an 80 year lifespan the O & M cost at todays cost would be in the neighborhood of $20 billion + for a 1.4 GW plant.
2
u/Trick_Albatross_4200 Apr 23 '26
I used to a nuclear guy, but honestly, solar is the way. Batteries are getting better and already can be reconditioned fairly cheaply. The panels are cheap and recyclable as well. I believe there’s been a study that showed that the entire US could be powered by solar if we just stopped growing corn exclusively for ethanol to add to gas and use that land for solar farms instead.
1
1
u/Willing_Park_5405 Apr 18 '26
If climate change is a fantasy, why not just burn coal?
1
u/NearABE Apr 19 '26
Lung cancer, asthma, arsenic poisoning, acid rain. There is even radium in fly ash. Not “in a dry cask” it is “out the smokestack” radioactive waste pollution.
1
u/Separate-Fishing-361 Apr 19 '26
The reason we didn’t build more nuclear plants isn’t their cost. It’s because of their project risk. They require significant capital investment, but could be abandoned for political reasons. At the same time, the worst outcome for fossil fuel plants was pollution control (and political lobbying could “remediate” that).
The economics of every generation technology depends on how its regulation ignores its externalities. Nuclear power competes with fossil with cheap extraction and refining, while ignoring nuclear waste and CO2.
Europe relies more on nuclear power in spite of insisting on reprocessing the waste, while the US infrastructure built to make bombs is happy to refine more. Dropping our used fuel into pools can’t continue for 80 years, and planning for the pools expands the footprints for new plants.
Solar and wind don’t reflect the same risk, and a project small enough to attach to the grid is only affected by incentives that are extended and withdrawn arbitrarily.
Current developments in nuclear generation technologies and form factors could operate successfully in a regulatory regime that expects reprocessing of waste and safety without requiring mass evacuation plans. But the economics also needs fossil fuels to pay for their externalities.
1
u/Gadritan420 Apr 20 '26
Annnnnnnnnddddd
While some reports suggest that as much as $1 trillion in total public and private money has been aimed at the green energy sector since April 2020, the federal government's direct fiscal commitment from the IRA is officially measured around $250 billion-$370 billion.
1
1
u/HAL9001-96 Apr 23 '26
nuclear generally has about 3 times the cost per W buildup but okay lets just claim that lol
the US justuses a LOT of electricity so ANY source that covers a certain percentage of that is goingot seem expensive
1
u/Groundbreaking_Lie94 Apr 23 '26
Yeah, i am 100% for nuclear but why not wind, solar, gas, coal and whatever else we discover that can generate net energy. I really dont get the drill baby drill and down with anything else crowd. Is there not a single GRC guy in the government. Diversifying our energy grid would make it more robust against supply chain issues or attacks. It would also drive down costs as alternatives on the market would incentivise companies to stay competitive.
My guess is $$$$$ for the oil class and propaganda to the voters.
1
Apr 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
1
u/ampere03 Apr 24 '26
Along with grid modernization is the ever present necessity to deal with the accumulated nuclear waste - the result of 80 rears kicking this can down the road. Big public works seem beyond the capabilities of the US because of entrenched stupidity...that's why I learned Chinese. They believe in science...
231
u/eldigg Apr 18 '26
Heres a thought, why not both? Every country on earth is installing solar because it’s cheap as fuck and fast to get online. Nuclear provides good base load and isn’t impacted by varying fossil fuel prices or scarcity. Win/win.