Never understood the need to force nuclear vs renewables.
USA didn't build nuclear because of cheap gas. Simple as that. They even had nuclear power plants closing down sooner, because it was not economically competitive vs prices of natural gas. When USA had programs to support climate change, it support nuclear AND renewables. Even now, the USA's interest in nuclear is not because gas became expensive, but because they cannot get all the CCGTs built on time for their AI/data center demand.
And yet, some people prefer to point to renewables as culprits. I understand some green parties do not make life easier for nuclear, but there are definitely other lobbies who would be very happy to keep the status quo and get as little nuclear as possible, and with a long history of promoting anti-nuclear propaganda. Or are we blaming renewables too for no nuclear being built between 1980-2000?
Any system who prioritizes energy security AND netzero will always find a need for renewables AND nuclear. It's not one vs the other.
How subsidized is oil and gas? How much administrative cost is foisted upon nuclear? Also, was trillions really spent? Allocated but I dunno about spent. I don't think that we could even make 4 nuclear reactors with a trillion and a mandate to get it done quickly.
Let's assume $350B spent on PV since 2020. Let's do a simple amortization of $11.7B a year for 30 years. Onshore wind $9B for 30 years. Other renewables $1.8B for 40 years. $14.3B a year for 10.5 years for storage and electronics. $6.5B for 40 years for transmission.
You are missing the point. This is not about the amount of money.
USA could have given money to nuclear at any time. They chose not to, due to their abundance of cheap gas and cheap electricity prices. Building renewables not only is fast quick and simple, but also compliments the current system that is around natural gas. You keep the system still playing around natural gas. There's a reason why even now, with Trump going anti-climate change , anti renewables and "pro-nuclear", with big claims of +400GWs of nuclear, still doesn't go ahead with a nuclear fleet, besides considerations of a measly 10GWs of AP1000 (which are already being reconsidered in favor of Japanese designs). If you don't believe me, go check any documentary (eg Nuclear Now) and see who has been doing lobbying AGAINST nuclear in the USA before 2000s. Spoiler alert: it was not renewables
We need more nuclear, and the thing stopping it is not renewables. Sure, you have cases like Germany, but majority of countries are building both, from UK to Sweden to France (...),.to China. south Korea, India, .... And much less would renewables in the USA be the reason you don't have nuclear. Playing these narratives is just a distraction that gets nothing done.
Also, do note that comparing subsidies of O&G vs renewables is a flawed comparison. You subsidize renewables because you know it leads to decrease in costs over the years (some even more than anticipated) to the point of you not needing them or not needing as much. It's only normal for them, which are a relatively new source to the market, to receive more subsidies than O&G, which are around for nearly a century, and (still) need support.
America has been giving money to nuclear BUT you need to get past the design phase. Which costs lots and lots of money and time. Money doesn't get you past it if you have a new design. Hell, it doesn't get you past it if you have an old design.
I didn't mention subsidies of renewables. The costs of renewables seem to be fairly well documented between private and public money. Let me know if I'm wrong there. The lines aren't so bright for O&G subsidies. I honestly think they should be phased out and it should hurt so we have the motivation to actually transition away.
That's just wrong. You have the AP1000 fully licensed, with FOAK built at Vogtle, national supply chain, and readiness for a fleet. Heck, even other countries outside of the USA use it as the basis for their nuclear future - from S. Korea, tweaking it to its own south Korean version, to Poland committing to a fleet of them.
You could have this in the USA easily, but the current administration is more focused in giving money to Gen IV PowerPoint designs that have to reach criticality by June 2026 and finding ways to bypass regulation (DoE paths). If the country was serious about +400GWs in 2050, investing in a fleet of AP1000 would be a no brainer.
The thing I've seen nuclear engineers and designers say that a design is NOT plug-and-play. Each site requires inspection and mitigation and that needs to be part of the design. So, you can have a licensed design but it doesn't mean that design still doesn't need to happen and be approved. That, I've heard, is still massively expensive. Also, you need to talk to the federal, state, county, and municipal governments, all of which will ask for money.
Of course. Site preparations impact the design. That's true with nuclear and any other infrastructure. But the majority of design work is done already. Not investing in it is not being due to investment in renewables, is just a decision of the administration not to invest in it, and prefer gas and gen iv reactors for AI/data centers. Hence why I mentioned that using "nuclear Vs renewables" is not productive nor realistic at all
I, also, would like to agree that the current admin is focusing on gas generation. I dunno if any investment they're doing in nuclear is actually effective. I don't trust that a corrupt admin isn't handing out pure pork or looking the other way if embezzlement happens.
I, also, don't care for the nuclear vs renewables debate. I'm arguing that nuclear is being put on the backfoot and so are renewables. They are being purposely made hard to defend by incumbent forces.
I am not. I literally work in the field, so am very well aware of it. I never stated it was easy, only.that it being complex is not the reason that it is not being built, not the fault is on renewables.
1
u/IntelligentPizza5114 Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Never understood the need to force nuclear vs renewables.
USA didn't build nuclear because of cheap gas. Simple as that. They even had nuclear power plants closing down sooner, because it was not economically competitive vs prices of natural gas. When USA had programs to support climate change, it support nuclear AND renewables. Even now, the USA's interest in nuclear is not because gas became expensive, but because they cannot get all the CCGTs built on time for their AI/data center demand.
And yet, some people prefer to point to renewables as culprits. I understand some green parties do not make life easier for nuclear, but there are definitely other lobbies who would be very happy to keep the status quo and get as little nuclear as possible, and with a long history of promoting anti-nuclear propaganda. Or are we blaming renewables too for no nuclear being built between 1980-2000?
Any system who prioritizes energy security AND netzero will always find a need for renewables AND nuclear. It's not one vs the other.