All you are saying is that you don't understand the time value of money.
What you are saying is that we should waste money on enormous handouts to the nuclear industry today to get a tiny bit back in 60 years time. Making us poorer for generations.
Base load exists on the consumer/demand side. Base load power plants has always been an economic construct. Inflexible coal and nuclear power used to have the lowest marginal costs and high fixed costs and therefore could expect to run at 100% 24/7.
That is not the case anymore since zero marginal cost renewables have entered the market.
And "nuclear is worthwhile because we can cause inflation" is literally the least logical argument I have heard in a long time.
You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we need to handout untold trillions to the nuclear industry and is now trying to rationalize your position.
Nuclear plants have high capital costs but extremely low operating costs once built. The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) calculations that discount future cash flows still show nuclear becoming highly competitive over extended lifespans because the fuel costs remain so low.The claim about 26-year average operating life is misleading because it includes many plants shut down prematurely for political reasons, not economic ones. Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years.
The discount rate argument cuts both ways. While future revenues are discounted, so are future costs including decommissioning, waste storage, and replacement generation capacity. When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably
On baseload the grid still requires inertia, frequency regulation, and firm capacity. While renewables provide energy, they don't inherently provide these grid services. The costs of synthetic inertia, grid-forming inverters, and massive overbuild/curtailment to achieve reliable capacity aren't captured in simple LCOE comparisons.
The CSIRO report's 10% figure assumes a specific discount rate and doesn't account for carbon pricing, grid stability services, or land use constraints that become critical at high renewable penetrations. Real-world grids like France (70% nuclear) demonstrate sustained low electricity costs over decades, while high-renewable grids like Germany and California show increasing costs and reliability challenges.
The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge.
You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture.
You seem to be operating on data that is decades old at this point? Maybe read a bit on the subject?
The operational costs are actually quite high for nuclear power. Generally around $32/MWh. [1] That is equivalent to the all-in cost for a new built solar plant.
The solar plant will then produce zero marginal cost electricity. Meaning, the nuclear plant can't rely on operating at 100% 24/7 anymore since they are outcompeted.
We already see this happening in Australia, Germany etc. where previous "baseload" coal plants are forced to become peakers. Shutting down daily because there are no takers for their electricity when zero marginal cost renewables deliver. [2]
This is also starting to happen across Europe. When the Iberian blackout happened 1 reactor was out for scheduled maintenance and the equivalent to the capacity from two more was voluntarily withdrawn from the grid due to "market conditions.
> Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years.
So if we exclude all reactors which were decommissioned due to technical issues, economical issues etc. we can cherry pick the ones which survived. You went straight into survivorship bias.
Please bring back the logic to this discussion. You seem to have left it at the door.
> When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably
They don't. Storage is absolutely plummeting in price with the latest auctions in China landing on $63/kWh serviced for 20 years. [3]
Then we have comprehensive grid modeling:
See the recent study [4] on Denmark which found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load.
> Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources.
> However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour.
> For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
Or the same for Australia if you went a more sunny locale finding that renewables ends up with a grid costing less than half of "best case nth of a kind nuclear power". Including transmission, synchronous condensers and firming. [5]
> land use constraints
Which is already included in the price for renewables. The day we have land use constraints in a location that isn't a city state lets solve it.
> The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge.
You are trying to equate nuclear power to infrastructure because it simply does not make sense compared to renewables and storage. You can make the exact same calculation for renewables, pick solar panels with 40 year lifetimes, batteries optimized for cycle count if "lifetime" is the most central metric.
We don't because it doesn't make sense, and you know it.
> You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture.
Yes. We kickstarted the renewable industry, at the same time as we gave absolutely bonkers large handouts to the nuclear industry kicking off Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and the host of plants cancelled during planning.
Today we are phasing out renewable subsidies because they aren't needed anymore. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and will thus over time replace them in our global energy grid.
The $32/MWh operational cost figure from Lazard includes allocated capital recovery, not just O&M. Actual fuel + O&M for existing nuclear is ~$25/MWh per NEI data. For comparison, when you add firming costs to solar to achieve equivalent reliability (capacity factor × availability), the real comparison changes dramatically.
Regarding "survivorship bias" - the U.S. fleet average capacity factor has increased from 56% in 1980 to >92% today. Plants closed primarily due to broken electricity markets that don't value capacity or carbon-free baseload, not technical issues. Meanwhile, early solar farms are already seeing 30%+ degradation after 15 years.
The Denmark study you cite assumes 100% renewable basecase then adds nuclear - that's methodologically backwards. Nuclear-heavy grids (France, Ontario) consistently deliver lower costs than renewable-heavy ones (Germany, Denmark). The study also uses 8760-hour modeling which undersamples extreme weather events that drive real grid planning.
On storage costs - $63/kWh for 4-hour batteries doesn't solve multi-day renewable droughts. The capacity factor of batteries in CAISO is <10% because they're energy-limited. To match nuclear's reliability, you need 100+ hours of storage, making the math completely different.
The Australia CSIRO study uses LCOE comparisons which explicitly exclude grid integration costs, while assuming nuclear costs 3x higher than global benchmarks. Their own sensitivity analysis shows nuclear becomes competitive at international pricing levels.
Your market-based argument ignores that current markets are designed for marginal cost dispatch, not system reliability. Texas ERCOT demonstrates what happens when you optimize for cheap energy without capacity - rolling blackouts when wind unexpectedly drops.
The technical reality: grids need inertia, voltage support, and firm capacity. Nuclear provides all three inherently. Renewables require synthetic alternatives that aren't captured in simple cost comparisons.
Yes. You need to invest in your plant to keep it running.
> Plants closed primarily due to broken electricity markets that don't value capacity or carbon-free baseload
So now you're shifting the goalposts. It wasn't the nuclear plants fault that they couldn't produce cheap electricity. The market should subsidize them even more!
> Meanwhile, early solar farms are already seeing 30%+ degradation after 15 years.
And you completely skipped over the solar panels with 40 year warranties you can get if you value liftetime above all else.
Which is why the recent SMRs in Ontario comes in at a cool $150/MWh. They haven't even started building yet.
The French is wholly incapable of building new nuclear power as given by Flamanville 3 being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule.
The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. The EDF CEO is currently on his hands and knees begging the French government for handouts so their side of the costs will be at most €100/MWh. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026 and the first reactor online by 2038.
You seem to always be looking backward. We don't live half a century ago. We live in 2025 and make decisions based on outcomes we see today.
> The study also uses 8760-hour modeling which undersamples extreme weather events that drive real grid planning.
Keep a stash of fossil gas for the 10 year grid emergency? Who cares what you burn in year emergency reserves for a few days when the 10 year emergency hits.
We need to reduce the area under the curve ASAP. Not some imaginary "perfect" that never happens.
> On storage costs - $63/kWh for 4-hour batteries doesn't solve multi-day renewable droughts. The capacity factor of batteries in CAISO is <10% because they're energy-limited. To match nuclear's reliability, you need 100+ hours of storage, making the math completely different.
I love how you just keep shifting the goalposts into ever more insane positions because you have to accept that storage is here. A simplified simulation of the Australian grid with a tiny bit of overbuilding and 5 hours of storage leads to 99% renewable penetration.
You can also ask the French how that "nuclear reliability" went when half their fleet was offline and they literally had to beg Germany to reopen mothballed coal plants so their grid wouldn't collapse.
> The Australia CSIRO study uses LCOE comparisons which explicitly exclude grid integration costs, while assuming nuclear costs 3x higher than global benchmarks. Their own sensitivity analysis shows nuclear becomes competitive at international pricing levels.
Since this is a common complaint from people who detract from renewables they do include it. Both transmission, grid strength through synchronous condensers, batteries and firming from gas peakers.
They also assume nth of a kind South Korean costs to not fall for your "3x bias". And it still turns out to be twice as expensive compared to the renewable option. Now try inserting western new built nuclear power costs and the comparison simply becomes stupid.
Maybe you should read the study before continuing to make a fool of yourself because you can't deal with how horrifically expensive nuclear power is?
> Your market-based argument ignores that current markets are designed for marginal cost dispatch, not system reliability. Texas ERCOT demonstrates what happens when you optimize for cheap energy without capacity - rolling blackouts when wind unexpectedly drops.
Which is why about all other marginal cost grids also include ancillary services like capacity markets, power reserves etc. to ensure the that enough reserves are available based on their modeling.
The problem nuclear power has is that it is so horrifically expensive that these markets are a drop in the bucket compared to the price. It also doesn't solve the reserve problem since it needs to run at 100% 24/7 to just be horrifically expensive.
Calculating Vogtles $190/MWh to run at a gas peaker 10-15% capacity factor leads to $1000-$1500/MWh or $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices, whenever the nuclear plant runs.
> The technical reality: grids need inertia, voltage support, and firm capacity. Nuclear provides all three inherently. Renewables require synthetic alternatives that aren't captured in simple cost comparisons.
Which is why the CSIRO modeling included all this? But you seem to just pull the blinders ever tighter as you confront reality. Just pretend it doesn't exist.
Which you claim without a source and because you’ve decided that moving the goalpost to ”1 week of storage” is far enough to keep your point safe.
Without any data or science backing your claims.
This is really quite sad. You’ve entwined your identity with an energy source and can’t look objectively at what problems we need to solve and what those tools costs to use.
What you are saying is that we should waste money on enormous handouts to the nuclear industry today to get a tiny bit back in 60 years time. Making us poorer for generations.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp
Base load exists on the consumer/demand side. Base load power plants has always been an economic construct. Inflexible coal and nuclear power used to have the lowest marginal costs and high fixed costs and therefore could expect to run at 100% 24/7.
That is not the case anymore since zero marginal cost renewables have entered the market.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/there-is-no-going-back-aemo-bids...
And "nuclear is worthwhile because we can cause inflation" is literally the least logical argument I have heard in a long time.
You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we need to handout untold trillions to the nuclear industry and is now trying to rationalize your position.