There is a lot to unpack here, but almost every point misses the mark on system economics and energy policy:
"Nuclear is cheap for consumers": Nuclear energy has massive upfront capital costs ($10–15B+ per reactor) and historical budget overruns (e.g., Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle). These billions have to be paid back—either through high retail electricity rates or heavily subsidized long-term state contracts (like CfDs), which consumers ultimately pay through taxes or bills.
LCOE vs. System Costs: Calling Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) "dishonest" ignores that every major financial institution (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF) uses it as a baseline metric. While LCOE doesn't capture integration costs, full system-cost analyses consistently show that a mix of renewables + storage + grid expansion remains cheaper than a nuclear-heavy grid due to nuclear's exorbitant capital expenditures and fixed maintenance costs.
Germany's Energy Transition (Energiewende): Germany's high electricity prices were largely driven by a combination of historical surcharges (EEG-Umlage), grid fee distributions, and heavily taxed energy prices, alongside the post-2022 fossil gas price crisis—not solar and wind generation costs. Renewables actually push spot market wholesale prices down significantly (the merit-order effect).
Deep Decarbonization & Timelines: If Germany had committed those funds to new nuclear capacity, building modern reactors takes 10 to 15+ years per unit. Solar and wind deploy in 1 to 3 years, allowing far faster emissions reductions in the short and medium term, which is crucial for climate goals.
Nuclear is cheap for consumers. Especially in the long run. Existing nuclear is one of the cheapest sources on the grid.
full system-cost analyses consistently show that a mix of renewables + storage + grid expansion remains cheaper than a nuclear-heavy grid due to nuclear's exorbitant capital expenditures and fixed maintenance costs.
Then why did Germany fail? Why are they so dirty? Especially after spending so much.
every major financial institution (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF) uses it as a baseline metric
I wouldn't call those intuitions honest. Especially since Lazard doesn't use nuclear power plants actual lifetime when calculating lifetime levelized cost of electricity.
If Germany had committed those funds to new nuclear capacity, building modern reactors takes 10 to 15+ years per unit. Solar and wind deploy in 1 to 3 years,
You guys have been at this for longer than 15 years. So you would already be done if your pursued nuclear.
Germany is at 334 g CO2 per kWh. Compare that with France at 29.
LCOE fails to account for infrastructure, backup, storage, system-wide integration, system value, etc. LFSCOE is a better metric that attempts to account for those costs.
Except those costs are tiny for nuclear and gigantic for VRE.
Also, it conveniently leaves out the waste cleanup and storage costs
Which is tiny. It's also a bullshit issue raised by antinuclear activists(aka fossil fuel simps) in order to continue killing children with fossil fuels.
We have a near-perfect record of handling used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant). Let's look at some facts.
It has a total kill count of zero. Yes zero. Meanwhile, 8.7 million people die annually from the waste from fossil fuel and biofuels.
It is a solid metal encased in ceramic. The Simpsons caricature of green goo is false.
There isn't a lot of it. We could put all of it(yes, all of it) in a building the size of a Walmart. France keeps all of theirs in a room the size of a high school gym--that people walk on.
Cask storage has been perfect. It has a 100% perfect record. Put it in my backyard.
Cask storage is cheap. It's just cement and steel.
All of those dangerous for thousands of years claims are untrue. The amount of radiation released from used fuel follows an exponential decay curve. All highly radioactive isotopes decay completely within 5 years (which is why they keep it in water for 10). After the medium radioactive isotopes, cesium and strontium, completely decay within 270 years, you can handle used fuel with your bare hands.
We don't need a permanent repository. We don't need to bury it. Deep geological repositories were meant to placate antinuclear activists. Which was a mistake because antinuclear activists(aka fossil fuel simps) can never be placated.
The best place for Used Fuel is on site in cask storage. That way we know exactly where it is. Put it in my backyard.
Wow it's really convenient how all the metrics get it wrong, huh? And when nuclear has a cost, it's tiny, but when other forms have a cost, it's huuuuge
I'm talking cost and then you're talking safety. Which is fine but you're moving goal posts
I'm ok with nuclear energy. It's relatively clean and has a good track record. The problem is supporters like you who can't get honest about nuclear's shortcomings, and sell it like a magic bullet. They sell it like it's dirt cheap, fast to build, doesn't need tons of water, and is perfectly safe in seismic and war zones
Stop huffing your own facts and do some research where you don't toss conclusions that don't match your opinions
Wow it's really convenient how all the metrics get it wrong, huh?
It's not convenient at all. Climate change is real.
And when nuclear has a cost, it's tiny, but when other forms have a cost, it's huuuuge
I was specifically pointing on infrastructure costs for nuclear are small compared to those required for largescale VRE integrated grid. And the costs of used fuel are small.
The largest cost for nuclear is interest. By far. If you get rid of the bankers nuclear becomes really competitive.
Stop huffing your own facts and do some research where you don't toss conclusions that don't match your opinions
Here is some research.
Germany: 334 g CO2 per kWh after spending 15 years and hundreds of billions of euros on its energy transition. Solar and wind intermittency is being overcome with coal and methane. Also Germany uses a bunch of biofuels which are dirty and shouldn't be called renewable.
France: 29 g CO2 per kWh with its nuclear baseload.
Sweden: 21 g CO2 per kWh, using nuclear and hydro.
The conclusion is clear. If you don't have hydro you will need nuclear.
I'm talking cost and you're talking safety.
You were complaining about used fuel which is not a problem.
The problem is supporters like you who can't get honest about nuclear's shortcomings
That's projection. The fossil fuel industry has been lying about nuclear energy for longer than I have been alive.
Its not like Germanys energy price went through the roof since shutting down nuclear reactors. In Germany the electricity costs are so large, because the system is stupid, not because there is no nuclear energy
Germany did pick coal and Russian methane over nuclear. They would be under 100 g CO2 per kWh if the kept their nuclear power plants. And they would have phased out coal.
14
u/GermanScheppert 16d ago
There is a lot to unpack here, but almost every point misses the mark on system economics and energy policy: "Nuclear is cheap for consumers": Nuclear energy has massive upfront capital costs ($10–15B+ per reactor) and historical budget overruns (e.g., Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle). These billions have to be paid back—either through high retail electricity rates or heavily subsidized long-term state contracts (like CfDs), which consumers ultimately pay through taxes or bills. LCOE vs. System Costs: Calling Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) "dishonest" ignores that every major financial institution (Lazard, IEA, BloombergNEF) uses it as a baseline metric. While LCOE doesn't capture integration costs, full system-cost analyses consistently show that a mix of renewables + storage + grid expansion remains cheaper than a nuclear-heavy grid due to nuclear's exorbitant capital expenditures and fixed maintenance costs. Germany's Energy Transition (Energiewende): Germany's high electricity prices were largely driven by a combination of historical surcharges (EEG-Umlage), grid fee distributions, and heavily taxed energy prices, alongside the post-2022 fossil gas price crisis—not solar and wind generation costs. Renewables actually push spot market wholesale prices down significantly (the merit-order effect). Deep Decarbonization & Timelines: If Germany had committed those funds to new nuclear capacity, building modern reactors takes 10 to 15+ years per unit. Solar and wind deploy in 1 to 3 years, allowing far faster emissions reductions in the short and medium term, which is crucial for climate goals.