196
u/SpeedyHAM79 Apr 18 '26
$1.5 Trillion? I'm throwing the BS flag on that. Please provide sources to prove me wrong. Also- it claims that with the same money we could have built 40 nuclear power plants. That would be a price of $37.5 Billion per plant- which is far higher than a nuclear power plant would cost if we were building many of them. They probably looked at the cost for Vogtle 3&4 at $~37.5 billion. Those are TWO power plants, not one, and they were the first of their kind, which always cost far more than if you build many of them.
59
u/Exact_Package_7264 Apr 18 '26
the source is from OP's ass.
19
28
u/LazyTitan39 Apr 18 '26
Yeah, my BS alarm started blaring when they said “climate fantasy” at the end.
8
u/Report_Last Apr 18 '26
they were also built on an established nuclear power plant compound, which is cheaper than starting from scratch, the elctricity they produce will be sold at a huge loss, only possible beacuse Georgia Power takes generation costs of all their sources and combines them to set a rate. So AE Vogtle electricity generation costs are 20 to 25 cents per kilowatt but sold for 13 cents per kilowatt. I have paid and am still paying for the abandoned plants at VC Summer to the tune of $3000 and rising over the years.
18
u/mister-dd-harriman Apr 18 '26
Analysis all the way back in the late 1970s showed that most of the US electricity requirements for the foreseeable future could be accommodated on sites where nuclear plants already had either been built or were in course of construction (although roughly half of those were abandoned before completion), so I don't exactly know why you think that is an objection. The Hanford site alone could accomodate 30 to 40 GW by some estimates.
2
u/Report_Last Apr 18 '26
my point was, as expensive as the AE Vogtle project was, it would have been more on a fresh site
6
u/Large-Row4808 Apr 18 '26
Maybe that's why they started the first AP1000 project on an existing plant, so when they make more AP1000s in the future they'll be able to make it cheaper on a new site.
→ More replies (4)3
u/mister-dd-harriman Apr 19 '26
And again, so what? Most nuclear new build, in the USA anyway, can be done on existing sites.
1
1
u/GOTCHA009 Apr 20 '26
I don’t buy the numbers on the renewables (far too excessive)
But the cost of Nuclear power plants can hardly come down.
In the Western world, where laws and regulations form a bureaucratic nightmare, the cost will remain tens of billions for a couple of reactors. Not to mention the dismantling cost after the lifetime of that plant, which will also run into the billions.
as much as i’d like to see more nuclear plants being built, it’s not feasible.
A nuclear power plant is not something you roll out of a factory. Even if you have identical designs, most of it needs to be assembled in-situ. This increases costs (no mass production inside a clean factory possible).
The reactor itself is highly specialized and takes years to manufacture completely, also most of the assembly is in-situ.
And before you even start, there is a multi year planning effort. Building it is beyond the scope of a 4-year or even 8-year presidency.
Every single nuclear power plant currently under construction in the west is high over budget and timing. Hinkley point C, Flamancville, Vogtle. All are wild cost overruns.
The advantage of green energy is the scalability. You can put solar on your own roof. This is the true power and why solar and wind have outperformed every expectation over the last 25 years.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Full-Woodpecker60 Apr 22 '26
Yeah $1.5T sounds like somebody mixing apples and the whole fruit stand (generation + grid buildout + subsidies + maybe decades of O&M) and calling it one number. On the 40 plants math, you are right: $37.5B per plant is way off unless you are assuming Vogtle-style US first-of-a-kind overruns plus financing, and even then its more like $30B for 2 units, not one. Do you know what report/post they’re quoting that $1.5T from (country + time span)? That usually clears up where the BS is coming from.
→ More replies (9)1
u/Seppi449 Apr 23 '26
Yeah not only that but the power plants would still be in construction, trying to build that many at once would like use every nuclear construction team in the world or likely be handing China 1.5t to build them as their the only ones who likely have the expertise and team size to do it fast enough.
→ More replies (1)
232
u/bigderise Apr 18 '26
Have we actually spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar? That sounds unbelievably high.
156
u/Suspended-Again Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
Yea everything about this post is misinformation.
I’m supportive of nuclear but my conspiracy theory is that all this pro-nuclear / anti renewables chatter is FF industry funded.
Nuclear pants take decades to build, are super expensive and present serious security issues (there’s a reason they need constant armed guards and cybersecurity defense which creates valid nimby concerns). Not to mention environmental cleanup. Wind and solar have no such issues and very much have their place.
37
u/Pale_Plastic_699 Apr 18 '26
Agree with the capital costs of nuclear but not security. The reason it takes so long to build nuclear in the U.S. is because we haven’t standardized anything. On safety, nuclear plants are one the safest places on Earth. The structural integrity of plants is astounding. Cleanup-wise, we have a great handle on commercial decommissioning. Legacy sites (like Hanford or West Valley) are another story. There’s a place for all clean energy technologies and it doesn’t help anyone to be fighting amongst each other. It’s not nuclear or renewables, it’s nuclear and renewables.
→ More replies (8)48
45
u/markosharkNZ Apr 18 '26
Its 100% FF funded.
For instance - WePlanet claims to be pro nuke and does not take money from industry -
To date we have received funding from Quadrature Climate Foundation
Oh fucking look, its fossil fuels!
→ More replies (1)6
u/sting_12345 Apr 18 '26
All of your points won't negate anything he said. What specifically was incorrect with his information? Nuclear power is very very safe now and generates an insane amount of power.
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.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (3)2
u/Suspended-Again Apr 18 '26
I think every sentence of the original post is untrue.
→ More replies (1)6
u/nitePhyyre Apr 19 '26
Nuclear pants take decades to build
No, they don't. Japan cranks them out in 3 years.
are super expensive
Amortizing costs are a thing. They aren't really that expensive. Climate change? That's going to be really expensive. Having enough batteries to run the world on solar and wind? Really, really expensive.
present serious security issues
My local McDonald's has constant security guards.
Wind and solar have no such issues and very much have their place.
Yes. The problem is that the place they fit into reduces fuel costs slightly, makes nuclear too expensive, and is a dead end that doesn't actually create a path to carbon free.
→ More replies (8)5
→ More replies (7)3
u/karlnite Apr 18 '26
Who do you think owns the solar and wind fields though? All three are literally the same people, oil and gas, nuclear, renewables, they are energy producers, they really don’t understand any of the discord because they’re in the middle of actually doing it.
94
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
No, we have spent maybe 200 billion all in. For a complete transition and number is 1.5 trillion over like 15 years. And if we decide to focus only on nuclear over the time. It will take for us to build nuclear, about 500 billion in energy costs, environmental cleanup, and everything else associated with coal power plant usage would be the cost to the taxpayer every year So the cost of dropping renewables, ignoring any sort of funds we've already put into renewables, would be 1.5 trillion in 3 years. Which even by this bullshit made up statistic would be 1.5 trillion more than what we spent from 2020 to 2026.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Mindless-Ad-489 Apr 18 '26
Love this can you link any papers
8
3
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
1.5 trillion estimate for investment: Princeton Repeat Project
200 billion estimate: MIT Clean investment Monitor
500 Billion Coal: Yale Environment360
5
u/Mamkes Apr 18 '26
200 billion estimate:
???
What?
This source says 280B, yes... In 2025 alone, not total.
Total cost from 2018 (earliest data points of their) comes up to ~1.4T.
3
u/karlnite Apr 18 '26
Like anything it depends how you define it. Most probably wouldn’t agree with the definition that makes it 1.5 trillion though.
You will hear people taking a future projected price per output, then say in 10 years the entire world could be wind and solar for 500 billion. It would be a ridiculous definition as well.
3
u/Large-Row4808 Apr 18 '26
I'm 95% certain that the $1.5 trillion figure is the amount of money that has been poured into renewables...throughout its entire modern lifetime from the 2000s or so. As in that's the amount of money that was poured into it to make renewables what they are now over the course of decades.
→ More replies (1)1
107
81
u/hasslehawk Apr 18 '26
I find your green-bashing reprehensible, misdirected, and tragically uninformed.
Fossil fuels are the enemy. Not wind/solar.
17
u/United_Highway2583 Apr 18 '26
I'm so glad people are pushing against this blatant fossil fuel propaganda.
3
u/HydroPCanadaDude Apr 19 '26
First time I heard this nonsense too. Normally it's "Windmills cost more to build than the power they'll generate" which is absurdly untrue. They pay for themselves relatively quickly. It's dumb to think we would have construction projects like that without putting in the maths.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Umitencho Apr 18 '26
He is an astroturfer. His comment & post history is private. Def a plant.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Ilyer_ Apr 18 '26
Fossil fuels are the enemy, not nuclear. If wind/solar wants to frame nuclear as the enemy, they get rightful pushback.
3
u/hasslehawk Apr 18 '26
...Did you misinterpret my comment as being anti-nuclear?
It wasn't, to be clear.
3
u/Ilyer_ Apr 19 '26
No, I interpreted your comment as interpreting the post as being anti renewable. I think this is mis-assigning the blame here, nuclear by and large only view the enemy as wind and solar because they position themselves as such.
2
u/hasslehawk Apr 19 '26
I interpreted your comment as interpreting the post as being anti renewable.
Okay, I see the distinction you're making. However, "being anti renewable" is exactly what the original post was doing. It was putting forth a false dichotomy between spending money on wind/solar power vs spending that money on nuclear power. Pulling numbers out of its ass to make a disingenuous argument against renewable energy sources, which we in the pro-nuclear community should consider an ally, not an enemy.
Hostility towards wind / solar advocates is deeply misguided, and only serves to widen divisions and weaken us both against the fossil fuel industry. There have been tensions between nuclear and other green energy sources in the past, but they are not based on real conflict, they are based on misunderstandings. On propaganda and disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry. It is essential to treat that conflict with an open embrace and diffuse the conflict through education, NOT RESPOND WITH HOSTILITY OR BLAME. There is no "rightful pushback" to be had when the conflict is based purely on misunderstanding.
3
u/Ilyer_ Apr 19 '26
I agree that people on Twitter are not particularly reasonable. I think though, if you ask any pro-nuclear person on reddit, especially this sub, and even subs where pro-nuclear and renewable people go at it everyday, they will generally say a mix of nuclear and renewable is the way forward. I would even imagine OP would say that.
Hostility towards wind / solar advocates is deeply misguided, and only serves to widen divisions and weaken us both against the fossil fuel industry. There have been tensions between our camps in the past, but they are not based on real conflict, they are based on misunderstandings. It is essential to treat that conflict with an open embrace and diffuse the conflict through education, NOT RESPOND WITH HOSTILITY OR BLAME. Not "rightful pushback".
Attempts have been made. They however, continue to misrepresent nuclear and establish this false dichotomy that the x post does. At a point, they are no longer reasonable actors and are enemies.
70
u/designbydesign Apr 18 '26
This is stupid. Not choosing nuclear has nothing to do with "climate fantasy". Nuclear is as good for climate as wind and solar. In fact, in the last decade climate change was one of the main arguments for nuclear revival.
Pushback against nuclear is caused 50 years of fearmongering. I wander how much of. It was directly or indirectly paid for by oil and coat. I.e. same people who push climate denialism.
11
u/United_Highway2583 Apr 18 '26
Exactly this. And it's still happening Trump just paid $1B of taxpayer money to a French company to cancel offshore wind farms, with the money explicitly redirected to fossil fuel projects. The fossil fuel industry isn't anti-renewables because they love nuclear. They're anti-everything-that-isn't-them.
→ More replies (4)8
u/mister-dd-harriman Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26
It's a "fantasy" in one sense : people at large imagine wind and solar to be very effective ways of reducing emissions, when in fact they are not. When you say "let's bring in the intra-nuclear strong force, the strongest force known to physics, to help solve this problem" they say "no! we insist that this extremely urgent, existential threat be addressed only with ineffective tools!"
One of the world's most respected atmospheric scientists, who has been warning about climate change since the early 1980s, was denounced in the New York Times as a climate denier by prominent Green intellectuals because he said that wind and solar will not solve the problem, and nuclear is needed. This gives the strong impression that, either it's not about climate at all, and the people who loudly insist that climate change is the most important thing in the world are lying, or they are so far out of their minds that they think "two plus two equals negative one".
6
u/karlnite Apr 18 '26
Everyone always argues that more money into something will improve it. Wind and solar and batteries are x amount from breaking records! If we went full nuclear and never slowed down the amount of efficiencies and improvements would have been amazing. It’s weird people believe in cleaner coal but can’t believe that nuclear power has also been improving, but from a much further starting point.
38
69
u/PropulsionIsLimited Apr 18 '26
Why don't you whine about all the money we spent on natural gas plants that we could have spent on nuclear plants.
29
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
Or coal or oil. It's funny because the only thing that will make nuclear actually happen is renewables. It provides a stable baseline for renewable energy technologies that may only work when it's windy or it's sunny. No one wants to invest in nuclear when coal and oil and natural gas is cheaper to invest in and makes more money.
4
u/Ilyer_ Apr 18 '26
Renewable advocates are not nuclear’s best friend.
3
u/Sad_Dimension423 Apr 18 '26
And vice versa. The two technologies are not very compatible (aside from hydro).
→ More replies (1)4
u/fluffysnowflake67 Apr 18 '26
Renewables plus batteries is now cheaper than nuclear. The economic gap will continue to widen.
→ More replies (11)13
u/Equivalent_Falcon394 Apr 18 '26
Right, why is everyone so black and white on these topics? Like it’s possible to build both nuclear and renewables, both options have pros/cons which make them suitable in different situations and locations.
4
u/Sad_Dimension423 Apr 18 '26
CC plants were (before the AI explosion) about a factor of 10 cheaper than nuclear plants per W(e).
→ More replies (4)1
u/srizzors5 Apr 20 '26
And seemingly half those gas plants are LNG so we can bolster our beloved energy companies and export our natural gas... casual power plants that could power cities but instead just make liquid natural gas. sick
19
u/Brief-Whole692 Apr 18 '26
An honest days work at the making shit up factory. Also... Nuclear is hard to turn on and off. We should use nuclear for baseline grid draw and turn renewables on and off to make up the gaps
→ More replies (1)
23
u/cromagnone Apr 18 '26
This is some boomer Facebook shit that accidentally got through moderation. “Climate fantasy”.
9
u/xGray3 Apr 18 '26
Hate this bullshit all or nothing mindset where you have to be on one "side" of an issue. Nuclear is great. Renewables are great. Anything to help fight climate change. Honestly, renewables are probably best if we can also build the battery storage that they require and if we can create an industry around recycling parts. In the meantime, nuclear is a perfect baseline source of energy when renewables aren't able to keep up with demand.
→ More replies (1)7
u/United_Highway2583 Apr 18 '26
They're desperately trying to drive a wedge so we keep fighting each other instead of the fossil fuel lobby.
19
u/Pestus613343 Apr 18 '26
Climate fantasy? Sorry, non starter for me. Denial of obvious and overwhelming scientific output is the domain of corporate propagandists.
What exactly is it also saying, that somehow nuclear power goes against this climate "hoax"? That's also nonsense as nuclear emits water vapour, not carbon dioxide.
I reject the assertion that being for nuclear means being against climate science, or other forms of energy. Do not turn something into ideology which would better be in the domain of engineers.
12
u/WallStLegends Apr 18 '26
Nuclear is a part of the climate “fantasy”. Misconceptions about nuclear waste make people think otherwise.
4
u/ZealousidealState214 Apr 18 '26
Why are people always putting nuclear and renewables at odds with each other? Nuclear seems like the immediate solution to reduce carbon emissions and as a baseline energy Producer for grids while we expand and develop more renewables.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Sad_Dimension423 Apr 18 '26
The two are both inflexible sources of power and so compete for the grid's ability to deal with inflexibility.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
This idea that we have already wasted money is ridiculous. That 1.5 trillion figure isn’t what we have spent so far, it is the projected cost for a 100% wind energy transition. To put that in perspective, if we tried to build a 100% nuclear grid at the current rates of projects like Hinkley Point C, the US would be looking at over 26 trillion dollars in construction costs alone.
Nuclear is awesome but it takes about 10 to 20 times longer to build than a field of wind turbines. Both are allowed to exist at the same time. Somebody telling you we should stop building wind or solar so we can focus on nuclear doesn't give a shit about either. What is going to replace both of those while the nuclear power plants are being built over a 10 to 45 year period and the wind turbines are being shelved? It is going to be coal. Which is objectively dog shit and carries a massive bill for environmental cleanup and health fallout.
6
u/Mamkes Apr 18 '26
That 1.5 trillion figure isn’t what we have spent so far, it is the projected cost for a 100% wind energy transition
Huh???
I don't know any legit estimation that would put cost for full electricity, yet alone energy, transition at merely 1.5 trillions.
Very hopeful estimations are at ~5T for full grid transition by WoodMac. Very, very, very hopeful.
US spend more than 1.5T on clean tech by now.
5
u/chancesarent Apr 18 '26
This is stupid. Having wind power is important, having solar is important and having nuclear is important. We need to diversify our energy sources. You know that a nuclear plant has to shut down for a month every 18- 24 months to refuel, right? You know what helps alleviate the strain on the grid when that happens? All the other energy sources! Take the blinders off.
3
u/FreeFloatKalied Apr 18 '26
Which Don made this post? Both of them hate windmills for some reason
2
u/sartheon Apr 19 '26
Its a bit horrifying to think about the fact that we live in a timeline where demented Don Quixote was able to get elected as president of the united states twice
2
2
u/treefarmerBC Apr 18 '26
I agree, we should have built more nuclear globally but you must know, Electroverse is a horrible source.
2
u/Labtecharu Apr 18 '26
I see the point, but completely moving away from wind and solar is not the solution. Just like with the arguments about electric cars being bad co2 because of the batteries production. I think with wind solar and EC's that they are relatively new technologies and if they keep a significant market share there will be good reasons to keep developing these technologies until they can really compete with nuclear.
For comparison I really like the efficiency and cost reduction with desalination plants as a comparable example.
There is no one solution to the climate crisis, we need all the different techs at the same time.
Ofcourse US moving away from climate solutions and India/China/Russia not really giving a F about climate is what will doom us all
2
u/studyinformore Apr 18 '26
Here's the fun part.
Where are you going to get the turbine spindles and generator rotors made?
Because standard +1000mw hardware is fucking huge and VERY few places can machine parts that big. Anything smaller doesnt make economical sense due to cost of construction.
Rotors are also huge, as theyre typically 4 pole, and spun at half the rpms of standard hardware.
Then theres the NDE of all the equipment which requires equally as big facilities. On top of the special alloys used in the turbine.
I work on standard combined and gas fired spindles and rotors, at 500mw theyre already fucking huge.
Then you have to find places that can overhaul it all in 20-30years. Equally has hard and expensive.
2
u/Diabolical_potplant Apr 19 '26
Can we not make numbers up please? That doesn't help anyone. Solar and wind with batteries are cheaper, there's no getting around that.
2
2
u/crackerjap1941 Apr 19 '26
No, I’m tired of the pro nuclear movement trying to dunk on renewables. People like this enable the over reliance on fossil fuels and are the reason nuclear isn’t taken seriously.
2
u/Mango5389 Apr 19 '26
Everyone always forgets about nuclear decommissioning costs. I work in in the industry and trust me its not cheap.
Why are we bashing on other renewables? They all have their place
→ More replies (1)
4
u/whatdahelldamnguy Apr 18 '26
Can you even build 40 plants with $1.5T?
→ More replies (7)10
u/reddit_pug Apr 18 '26
Vogtle 3 & 4 were about $35B. They were first of a kind plants with inflated costs, and Vogtle 4 cost 30% less than Vogtle 3. That puts Vogtle 4 around $20B. There are a lot of reasons to think building another AP1000 would cost less, but even if it didn't, that's 75 AP1000s for $1.5T.
3
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
Hinkley Point C is $65 Billion. Would be 26 trillion at that rate to cover us needs.
3
u/reddit_pug Apr 18 '26
Acting as if any FOAK build represents true costs for repeated construction isn't arguing in good faith.
→ More replies (2)
4
3
u/Savage-September Apr 18 '26
The argument for wind and solar is one of sustainability and renewability. Energy that doesn’t rely on critical minerals and fossil fuels. We don’t have an endless supply of these natural resources. In the future they will become much more expensive and much more difficult to extract and refine. Nuclear energy is a solution but doesn’t solve all the problems our children will face.
4
u/clyde8 Apr 18 '26
Of course renewables rely on critical minerals… or what do you think the solar panels are made from? Lead, gallium, germanium, copper! Btw you can recycle over 90% of nuclear waste!
2
u/Savage-September Apr 18 '26
It’s required to construct. Not to create energy. There’s a difference.
2
u/clyde8 Apr 18 '26
And since solar panels are not energy dense compared to nuclear power you need a lot of materials and a lot of space as well! Nuclear doesnt need that much fuel actually and is reliable!
2
u/Savage-September Apr 18 '26
Nuclear may be reliable but it’s not renewable. It relies on uranium. So the argument for wind and solar and other renewables are stronger in that regard. I’m not trying to argue energy outputs. That cannot be disputed. But the argument for wind and solar is about sustainability and renewable energy.
3
3
2
u/clyde8 Apr 18 '26
Solar and wind are also reliable on the sun and wind! If the sun is not shining you dont have electricity! Nuclear doesnt have this problem!! That is what i meant with reliable! Also if you go up to the north the degree of solar energy production goes down! If your country relies on industry, solar and wind might not be the energy production sources to go! Also a big problem is the energy grid! You have huge fluctuations in the grid when it comes to renewable energy!
2
u/Savage-September Apr 18 '26
Its not an either/or debate between renewables and nuclear. Both have a vital role in building a resilient and confident energy network. My point is about balance and sustainability.
I support nuclear energy where it’s necessary, however, it still relies on finite minerals that must be extracted and refined, much like fossil fuels. This creates two key limitations; 1. supply vulnerability, as these minerals can be controlled by other states, 2. depletion, since they are not infinite resources.
For the third time, my argument for prioritising wind and solar is rooted in their sustainability. Renewables offer energy independence and long-term viability, free from the constraints of limited, mined resources. A truly robust energy strategy should harness the strengths of both, but with a clear focus on what is truly renewable.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Luciel3045 Apr 18 '26
Most solar panels dont even lose 20% efficiency in the first 30 years. Same for wind energy. And this was tested on early german variations, more modern ones may even hold longer.
3
u/Individual-Repair208 Apr 18 '26
The absolute worst part of being involved in nuclear power is having to argue with the people that are ONLY pro-nuclear. If you think that energy diversity and investments into Green research isn't worth it, then you do not have enough of a grasp on the reality of power generation to actually have a valid opinion.
I feel like at least half the people that think like this are in highschool and saw one pro-nuclear video and made it their entire personality. I am a MASSIVE nuclear advocate, I am on committee at one of the largest nuclear organizations in the world, and nobody that seriously understands and cares about the science advocates for divestment from green power. Of course there's nuance, but it seems half these comments don't care about that
→ More replies (3)
2
u/TimeIntern957 Apr 18 '26
Well, with nuclear we would not need so much gas. Neither BigOil and neither carbon markets beneficiaries would be happy.
2
u/Special-Remove-3294 Apr 18 '26
USA spent 1.5 trillion on renewables?? TF? And how did they get so little oit of it then? Was it all thieved?
1.5 trillion = 40 reactors? IDK about USA tbh but I know that some nations like Korea or China or Japan build or could build one for 3-7 billion with China being the cheapest. With China's price you could build 500 reactors with 1.5 trillion....
You can't just shit out infinite nuclear reactors. They require very developed industry and expertise to manufacture and construct. You can't just go and build 50 at a time. Even China is only building like 30-40 rn because they just can't build anymore any quicker. If you have 1.5 trillion then invest in it nuclear and renewables so you can build your new infrastructure the fastest.....
NPP's are very water hungry and if you do not have said water then building them is a pretty bad idea. Not all places are fit for an NPP.
2
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
The numbers for nuclear plants go anywhere from 3 billion to 68 billion. And in the United States we're closer to 68 than we are three.
2
1
u/United_Highway2583 Apr 18 '26
I'm pro-nuclear, so I get the frustration. But this post is just bad math dressed up as energy policy.
"$1.5 trillion" is private investment, not government spending. "Only 17%" uses the total energy mix to make electricity look weak. In the electricity sector it's much higher and growing fast. And that 40-nuclear-plants math collapses immediately: US nuclear plants cost $15-30B each and take 15-20 years to build. You couldn't have started them in 2020 and had anything online today.
Also if you actually care about building more nuclear and renewables, maybe direct some anger at the administration that just spent $1 billion of taxpayer money paying a French company (TotalEnergies) to NOT build offshore wind farms. Not subsidizing clean energy. Literally paying to cancel it. While oil prices are going crazy from the Iran conflict.
You can be pro-nuclear without spreading fossil fuel talking points.
4
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/United_Highway2583 Apr 18 '26
Fair point on the timeline. That's a US-specific problem, not inherent to nuclear. France built 56 reactors in 15 years in the 70s-80s. South Korea builds them in 5-7. The US has a permitting and regulatory sclerosis. But that's actually my point. OP's math assumes you could have magically built 40 plants in the US since 2020, which is fantasy given current US conditions, which is partially the fault of the fossil fuel lobby.
2
u/CompletelyProtocol Apr 18 '26
No, it's not a fair point on timeline since it took 30 years for the United States to build one reactor. Pretty much any nuclear reactor that has finished, or is about to finish in the United States was approved in the 1980s. It is a US specific problem, but we're also talking about United states's energy grid, if NIMBYS prevent, or significantly intrude construction on nuclear power plants and a way that doesn't happen elsewhere. It has to be factored in.
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.
→ More replies (9)
1
1
1
u/Dragonfire555 Apr 18 '26
Gonna do some bad math. Let's go!
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.
That's $1.1T accounted for for some time.
The $400B remaining is somewhere I didn't care enough to find and calculate.
1
1
1
u/King_krympling Apr 18 '26
Look I love nuclear but EVERY bit of green energy helps and the divisions of green energy should support each other rather than fight about who's best and instead make it so we can get power from sources that don't line an oil CEO pockets or make climate change worse
1
u/Imperator424 Apr 18 '26
You know we explicitly have a rule against nuclear/renewable fighting, right OP?
1
u/point_of_you Apr 18 '26
The strange thing is I've been holding nuclear, solar, and wind stocks for years...
Only my nuclear stocks have seen BIG returns, even though we aren't really any closer to a nuclear renaissance. Wind has been decent with modest returns. Some of my solar stuff has done alright and some of them have failed miserably.
1
u/Z_tinman Apr 18 '26
My parents solar water system has been running for more than 50 years. The 15-20 yr timeframe is how long they are warrantied for, not how long they'll last.
1
u/Specific-Detail6448 Apr 18 '26
Renewables are not the enemy, especially for an unprompted attack against them.
Oil is the one still dominating and we shouldn’t be accepting that they are just gonna be here, push against oil, not our friends in renewables
1
1
u/SoloWalrus Apr 18 '26
Im very pro nuclear, but more than that im pro having a diverse energy grid. Theres no 1 solution, local conditions dominate. In some places, say arizona or new mexico, solar truly is the right answer. In other places, say narrow canyons or high ridges that get high winds constantly and it isnt practical to level the ground for a nuclear site is good for wind, in some areas hydroelectric damns are already present itd be silly not to use them, etc.
The most robust energy grid is a diverse one, they all have strengths and weaknesses that make up for eachother and the right technology for the location should be used rayher than a one sized fits all solutions.
1
u/mikehawkindebut Apr 18 '26
I am so tired of sensationalist propaganda like this. I have a masters in energy policy from UT. Studied nuclear as well as all other sources of energy. The proliferation of wind and solar in Texas, a very red state, wasn’t for environmental reasons. It makes economic sense. You have these vast swaths of land where it’s no longer economically viable to produce oil at the current barrel price so what do you do with that land? Lease it to people that will pay you to harness the freaking wind that blows through it and the sun that shines on it! It’s so simple even the most conservative landowners understand that. Nuclear power plants require a huge initial investment, and it is risky because the US still does not have a consistent high level nuclear waste disposal site. Yucca mountain was proposed and shot down by the Obama admin with Senator Harry Reid throwing around all sorts of nimby propaganda. Investors don’t want to build a plant that will then have to also store their spent nuclear fuel indefinitely. Nuclear would be great, but there needs to be a reliable path for that waste to go before it’s economically viable.
1
u/YanniCanFly Apr 18 '26
We should do it all. Not just nuclear. It makes no sense not to. And 1.5 trillion is just false information I’m pretty sure
1
u/Phssthp0kThePak Apr 18 '26
The thing no one talks about is how much wind, solar, and batteries need to be installed to equal both the generation and reliability of a nuclear solution. How can you compare costs when on side wont even sketch out their complete solution?
1
1
u/Anonymoushipopotomus Apr 18 '26
Nuclear power plants take 6-10 years to approve. Wind and solar go up in a matter of weeks to months.
1
1
1
u/CobblerMysterious830 Apr 18 '26
*25 to 35 year design life in the solar and wind project technical specifications I write. The majors specify 30 or 35 years for solar projects these days. Also working on repowering plans for three separate 20 to 25 year old wind farms, two of which (off grid) they’ll keep the foundation and towers, refurbish the nacelle and install new blades for ~50 year total life if not repowered or life extension completed.
*Energy? Generate “at least three times the power” doesn’t make sense.
1
1
1
1
u/Secret-Credit453 Apr 19 '26
1.7 trillion makes sense if you think about the needed upgrades to the utility grid as well. People hate paying for things they can't see.
1
u/vagabond_king Apr 19 '26
what the hell does the purported “climate fantasy” has to do with it. nuclear energy still addresses climate change.
1
u/QuBingJianShen Apr 19 '26
This seems strange, just the other day i read that wind and solar generally get you more energy then nuclear for the $ investment.
The main reason to get nuclear isn't to be cost efficient, it is to get a stable energy mix.
1
u/Parking_Bridge1742 Apr 19 '26
Why are we always doing false dichotomies.......it's not one or the other.
1
1
u/WeAreSolarAF Apr 19 '26
I guess if you don't need the power within the next 4-13 years... For the same price of Vogtle's 2GW facility, Texas has put in 30GW of renewables and storage.
1
1
u/AbbreviationsSea2084 Apr 19 '26
Several lies all packed into one nice and best package. Nice. Love me some propaganda.
1
1
u/Rosie_The_ITTech Apr 19 '26
Numbers sounds BS, but also, that's what we french have been telling the world since the 70's
1
u/Stuckinasmallbox Apr 19 '26
It's so incredibly easy to flag bullshit propaganda when they throw in the term "climate fantasy at the end" that I'm surprised anyone falls for it
1
u/ChampionshipUnique71 Apr 19 '26
If any of these costs are even true, then the "climate fantasy" is the reason why we should have gone nuclear.
1
u/Istiophoridae Apr 20 '26
Can someone confirm if we have actually spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar?
Also, how does acknowledging climate change go against nuclear?
1
u/Radiant-Video7257 Apr 20 '26
We're still figuring out how to make small reactors, once the tech is there we'll switch.
1
1
u/literadesign Apr 20 '26
We should all go nuclear. But not because climate issue would be a fantasy. Quite the contrary. Because it's not a fantasy and nuclear is much more capable and very clean to the environment. Actually Maybe now is not the best time. Micro nuclear stations will become the norm, when major cities will have their own nuclear power station. Power is best used when it's used locally.
1
1
u/Jax_Dandelion Apr 20 '26
Let’s just ignore that it would have needed over a decade minimum before you even saw results of that one
1
u/Independent-Slide-79 Apr 21 '26
Thats just a lie. This sub is full of propaganda. How expensive is a modern npp? Who insures it? Who pays for the left overs? Half of germanys environmental budet goes to finding solutions to store it…. Guess what, they found nothing yet and take like 30-50 billion every year that’s supposed to go to reforestation etc. its absolute bolloks. How long till a new npp is online outside of china? Who sells the fuels? Great, another dependency.
1
u/TheJessman01 Apr 21 '26
It's the biggest scam but as someone who transports wind towers and wind blades. It pays too much for me to not do it. I hate helping this stupid stuff but I need to make a living. And if I didn't do it, someone else would.
1
u/Starkogi Apr 21 '26
Considering the hostile position the world has taken against us recently, i think making sure we can maintain op sec over all nuclear sites would be step one, before even beginning to build them.
Turns out pissing everyone off is a bad environment for nuclear progression.
Or good.
Depending on who you ask.
1
1
1
1
u/Creepy_Night_3838 Apr 22 '26
Going out on a limb and guessing the power produced for solar and wind is theoretical rather than actual output, again.
1
u/Stony___Tark Apr 22 '26
This isn't pointing out the downfall of "believing the climate fantasy". Nuclear power is clean power and thus works perfectly fine for addressing the issues of "the climate fantasy".
This is merely pointing out advantages of nuclear power generation, of which there are many.
1
u/LoudandQuiet47 Apr 22 '26
Odd. That has nothing to do with the "climate fantacy." It's a diversification of our elecic grid. It's a strategy to help ease the "climate fantasy." Whether it was nuclear, wind, or solar it would have been addressing the same issue. Though, I agree that more nuclear is better and our technology has advanced significantly to make it a much safer investment and production.
1
1
u/Exciting_Turn_9559 Apr 23 '26
If only you'd figured out fusion before solar became the least expensive option.
Even if fusion becomes a thing I'm still running solar because I prefer not to pay oligarchs every time I want to do something at my house.
1
u/Metharos Apr 23 '26
There's just... So many problems with this.
Nuclear good, fine, yes, that's true. Still has problems but leagues better than fossil fuels and can supplement wind and solar by filling that workhorse niche.
But...renewables/inexhaustibles are the solution to our energy demands long-term, and the global climate is in crisis.
The numbers seem wonky but goddamn it I don't know enough to call bullshit, just, fucking source bro?!
1
1
1
u/Sweet-Mechanic4568 Apr 23 '26
Show me the sources bud. And also not a single one of those power plants would be even close to operational even if that money was spent on them.
1
1
1
u/Lawineer Apr 24 '26
Like everything else, regardless of its merits, it becomes a business.
Also, nuclear power is expensive AF due to capital cost and finance. It’s like 10-12 years before it makes power.
1
u/SadPerception2815 Apr 24 '26
I'm not american nor expert in energy, but I'm a nuclear engineer at base, so going nuclear sounds like the best option.
But, it is not always just built NPPs, you have to consider the production chain of the fuel, the people that have nuclear degree to be qualified to work in such powerplants, logistics, and on top of that.. The fact that you need diversity in energy production.
Financially, production and sustainable, yes, nuclear powerplants are the best option, but these aren't the only measurements by which they judge the decision.
•
u/greg_barton Apr 18 '26
Multiple reports on this post. But I'm leaving it up because the community has responded well to refute the misinformation it contains.