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.
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.