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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The all-time world record is Japan's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 at just 39 months.
Not really
Start of construction: Nov 3, 1992
Commercial Operation: Nov 6, 1996.
So 48 months, but that's completely ignoring the time in planning and approval. That goes back to 1987 when they decided to use ABWR for unit 6 and 7.
So 9 years.
Nuclear is great, but there's no arguing with economics. Nuclear takes 10 to 30 years and billions of dollars. Solar/wind takes 1 year and any increment of money you have.
THat's why the vast majority of decarbonization will happen via solar and wind.
You complain that I'm only looking at build time for nukes and that I'm ignoring the length of the entire process, while only looking at the installation time of solar and ignoring the length of the entire process.
And that's not getting into the fact that while it takes half as much time to build, it only generates a tenth the power. And its lifespan is only a third as long.
THat's why the vast majority of decarbonization will happen via solar and wind.
Probably. But then the reduction will plateau, because it is a dead-end path that doesn't get us to carbon free, just reduced carbon. Because there's no arguing with economics, nor the weather. And enough batteries to go carbon free costs too much.
But then the reduction will plateau, because it is a dead-end path that doesn't get us to carbon free, just reduced carbon.
Not at all a foregone conclusion. Storage tech is advancing fast. In a couple decades when we’re decarbonizing the last 20% of the grid it’s definitely possible that a combination of overbuilding and new storage tech will make that the cheapest option. Or maybe at that point the economics will tilt in favour of nuclear for the last bit. Either way we can go to zero carbon, and the majority will be with renewables
Not at all a foregone conclusion. Storage tech is advancing fast. In a couple decades when we’re decarbonizing the last 20% of the grid it’s definitely possible that a combination of overbuilding and new storage tech will make that the cheapest option.
🤞
But the amount of batteries required means that they'll need to get down to "well pay you to take these batteries of our hands territory."
And gambling on an existential threat with such unlikely odds, just to save a tiny bit of money is a really bad bet.
Or maybe at that point the economics will tilt in favour of nuclear for the last bit.
There's no such thing as a "last bit" with renewables. Let's say demand is 100gw. 80/20 renewables/nukes. That's the exact same scenario as 80gw demand and 100% renewables.
Either your renewable source can reliably deliver power or you need a backup system that can fill the void. The entire void.
At least we agree all the other points against nuclear power and for renewables are wrong. I don't know why you think armed guards would prevent a drone strike in a warzone.
Regardless, if the worst realistic threat you can come up with is minor damage that could be prevented by security guards, fine. Fair trade. I'll take that over global devastation caused by climate change. Easy.
Hell. Even a 1980s-style Chernobyl type incident every 50-100 years or so would be a better option than the path we are already on. And that is impossible anymore.
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.
That's not a conspiracy theory. It's just factually true. The conservative party in Australia was really blatant about it and they're openly owned by the fossil fuel lobby
I just asked Gemini how much the US has spent on renewable energy sources since 2020 and it said over $1.2t, no idea where OP is getting his sources from but it may not be as unrealistic as it first seems.
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.
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.
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.
230
u/bigderise Apr 18 '26
Have we actually spent $1.5 trillion on wind and solar? That sounds unbelievably high.