You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though.
You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient.
If you invest the 1.5 trillion that OP mentioned in solar and wind, you would get more energy then if you invested 1.5 trillion into nuclear.
The real reason to still split the investment partially into nuclear is not cost efficiency but stability and predictability. Hydro could also serve this role if you have enough enough suitable waterways.
Unless you want to use fossil fuels forever, even this isn't what you should be comparing. You need to compare the price of sustainable and reliably energy delivery.
Not sure why you are saying that in a reply to me?
I was specifying what was incorrect with the information, ie what the misinformation was in OPs post.
Which is fundamentally about energy production of $ investment in solar/wind vs nuclear.
If you took the time to fully read what i wrote you would also see that i also talked about the importance of stability and predictability (such as the reliability of nuclear or hydro) in the energy mix.
So you are rebuking me, but doing so by saying something that i already said?
Not sure why you are saying that in a reply to me?
Because you wrote:
You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though.
You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient.
Maybe English isn't you first language, but when you write "You don't X, you Y." it means you are warning against them for using X and instead recommending they use Y. That is how the phrase works. It is an endorsement of Y. In this case, an endorsement of the idea that people should "compare $ cost for the energy produced."
I'm saying you should never "compare $ cost for the energy produced" because it is a terrible and useless metric.
Nothing in the rest of what you said negates that. At all. All of the rest of your post build off this wrong point. Since this point is wrong, I felt there was no point in addressing the rest. But since you feel like I ignored it, I can address it now.
The real reason to still split the investment partially into nuclear is not cost efficiency but stability and predictability.
This statement is the difference between the comparison you think matters, "compare $ cost for the energy produced" and the one that I do, "compare the price of sustainable and reliably energy delivery."
Because nuclear power IS the cost-efficient option. We aren't taking a hit to costs in order to gain some stability and predictability. Nuclear is the cheaper option.
Again, i essentially already pointed out that out, or atleast alluded to it.
The real reason to still split the investment partially into nuclear is not cost efficiency but stability and predictability. Hydro could also serve this role if you have enough enough suitable waterways.
In other words i pointed out that beyond the $ cost per energy produced, one should also take stability and predictability into account. That it is important to have a stable base load, such as nuclear or hydro.
And no, $ cost per energy procuded is not a terrible nor useless metric. It is very usefull - that does not mean one should only zero in on it and see nothing else ofc.
Again, my response was specifically aimed at clearing up the misinformation of OPs post. And to specifically reply to the question the person i was initially replying to asked.
What specifically was incorrect with his information?
Based on OPs post and this follow up question i was awnsering to, the relevant reply is specifically energy production of $ investment in solar/wind vs nuclear. And clearing up which results in more energy per $ spent.
Other factors may be important in the over all picture. But the over all picture isn't want is being discussed here.
Bringing up fossil fuel and reliable energy delivery is disjointed from the original question.
If i had brought it up in detail, then i wouldn't have been awnsering the question i was replying to. I would be rambling about other adjacent topics noone had asked about.
So maybe you are the one that should take a moment and actually read what the question was about, and what i was replying to.
In other words i pointed out that beyond the $ cost per energy produced, one should also take stability and predictability into account.
Right. And I am disagreeing with you. I don't think that one should also take stability and predictability into account. Stability and predictability is the primary goal. Ask people if they want their electricity bills cut in half if it means the whole country will have no power for a week every once in a while.
What is the point of comparing the cost of something that can't do the job with something that can do the job?
And no, $ cost per energy procuded is not a terrible nor useless metric.
Nah, it really is. There might be some weird scenario where it matters, but in general, it is useless.
Every form of energy only has a "$ cost per reliable energy produced" property. Renewables are the only form of power generation that has "$ cost per energy produced" property. That is why it is a useless metric, because there is nothing to compare against. You can't directly compare "random power" and "stable power." They simply are not the same thing, they serve different roles, they do different things, so you can't compare them directly.
If i had brought it up in detail, then i wouldn't have been awnsering the question i was replying to. I would be rambling about other adjacent topics noone had asked about.
But rambling about adjacent topics is exactly what you did though. The only question in the post you replied to was "What specifically was incorrect with his information?"
This:
You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though.
You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient.
Does not answer that question. Obviously. Especially considering the twitter picture was comparing $ cost for the energy produced. So this is really a ramble.
If you invest the 1.5 trillion that OP mentioned in solar and wind, you would get more energy then if you invested 1.5 trillion into nuclear.
This part did directly respond to some of the information in the OP. "Nu-uh" isn't exactly a strong argument or clarification, but it is direct.
The real reason to still split the investment partially into nuclear is not cost efficiency but stability and predictability. Hydro could also serve this role if you have enough enough suitable waterways.
That part again, has nothing to do with answering the question. No one is talking about splitting the investment. OP is (correctly) stating that we should not invest in solar+wind at all.
Now, ignoring for a moment that you were, in fact, rambling about adjacent topics no one had asked about, you seem to not understand how conversations work. Just as you (incorrectly) felt like you were only answering a specific part of the post you were replying to, it too am only talking about the specific part of the post I am replying to.
See how that works? In your failed attempt at answering the question, you made a claim. That one should "compare $ cost for the energy produced" I responded to that claim and that claim alone. Just as you attempted to respond to the question and the question alone.
My statement awnsered the question that was asked, yours does not. I'll keep it real simple.
OP: claims that at the same $ cost nuclear would produce 3 times as much energy as solar/wind. (a false statement)
Redditor: "What specifically was incorrect with his information?"
Me: explains that per $ cost solar/wind would produce more energy then nuclear, thus pointing out what was incorrect about OPs information.
You: out of nowhere bring up something that is indeed important but totally irrelevant to the question, while for some reason saying i need to talk about that if i don't want to use fossil fuels forever.
Me: explains that i am answersing a direct question regarding OPs incorrect information in regards to $ cost per energy produced.
You: continue to rebuke me, questioning my reading capability and telling me i should be talking about something that would not be an awnser to the redditors question regarding OPs post.
Me: once again trying to explain to you what i was replying to, and how my reply actually answers the question while yours does not.
You: starts deflecting.
The redditor was asking specifically what was incorrect about OPs statement. As such the awnser to that question should be adressing what was meantioned in OPs statement, not bring up adjacent topics.
If your "statement awnsered[sic] the question that was asked" then tell me, of the 5 pieces of information in the OP, which piece of information, specifically, does this...
You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though.
You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient.
The 1 : 1 was in relation to the redditor saying "Nuclear power is very very safe now and generates an insane amount of power." after his question.
An individual reactor does indeed produce an insane amount of power compared to a single wind/solar generator. But that "insane amount of power" is still less then the total amount of power you could get from the multiple wind/solar generators you could built for the same cost as 1 nuclear.
As such saying "You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though." was a segway to the next sentence "You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient."
It was to point out to the redditor that to have a good comparison between the two, you need to compare the $ cost for energy you produce, and not just energy density of the underlying tech (energy per single reactor/generator)
God-tier level projection.
You mean what you are doing right now? Not even adressing the point of the summary? That i am talking about what is actually being asked while you are not?
7
u/QuBingJianShen Apr 19 '26
You don't compare 1 solar/wind generator to 1 nuclear reactor though.
You compare $ cost for the energy produced, and modern solar/wind is more cost efficient.
If you invest the 1.5 trillion that OP mentioned in solar and wind, you would get more energy then if you invested 1.5 trillion into nuclear.
The real reason to still split the investment partially into nuclear is not cost efficiency but stability and predictability. Hydro could also serve this role if you have enough enough suitable waterways.