Comment by AnthonyMouse

3 hours ago

> If we learn that even if we make new nuclear as cheap as old nuclear, it's is still not cheap enough, surely it is a very useful comparison?

Only that's not what you're showing at all, because then you're comparing the existing operating costs to a construction cost that was very low. I mean we don't have to try to measure this in hotdogs per football field, the operating cost of US nuclear plants is a published number:

https://www.nei.org/getContentAsset/47fa8caa-9b0d-4029-932c-...

US nuclear plant 2025 operating costs (20.82/MWh) + fuel costs (5.95/MWh) together 26.77/MWh, i.e. 0.02677/kWh. Where would this measure as too high?

> If not already, the Chinese have taught us that once you get the wheels rolling, prices decimate pretty rapidly. They made solar and batteries viable, maybe we could do e-fuels?

They made solar viable during the day and batteries viable during the price spike at the early evening misalignment between demand and solar output. That's actually very useful, but it doesn't get you "how do you reliably power heat pumps to heat your house at night in winter". Proposing e-fuels is basically saying we should use a battery with higher conversion losses. That's inherently going to be complicated and expensive. On top of that it doesn't get you out of solar output being much lower in the winter.

> if we really add up ALL the costs of nuclear?

This is the traditional isolated demand for rigor. Add up all the cost for one thing, don't do it for any of the others.

Solar panels are semiconductors, so if you want to count things like Sellafield or Asse II (neither of which is in the US) against nuclear, don't you then have to count all the Superfund sites left behind from semiconductor manufacturing in Silicon Valley against solar?

And do we even need to enumerate the fossil fuel industries? They're the ones whose pictures are in the dictionary when you look up externalized costs and pollution.