Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I used to be anti-nuclear energy until I learned a bunch of science and engineering behind it. Turns out things are less scary when you know more about them.
Edit: I also learned that it's okay, and usually preferable, to not have a strong opinion about things that you don't know about.
Frankly, the second one is the bigger deal.
Doesn’t matter how great the engineering is behind it, it’s the human part that scares me.
The main problem with nuclear power is that it's the most expensive form of electricity. People who say otherwise are only looking at the cost of running the generator, rather than including all the true costs involved in generating each watt, which is called the "Levelized Cost Of Electricity" (LCOE)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
So there's no reason to build any new nuclear generators now that renewables+storage are the cheapest form of electricity, and are also the easiest and fastest to build.
I know nuclear is expensive, but power generation isn't the only reason to build nuclear reactors. Nuclear power plants basically prop up nuclear science. Without nuclear power plants, you're hampering the chances of discovering a breakthrough that could lead to cheaper nuclear energy. And you're pushing back the timeline on fusion.
Also, medical isotopes used for cancer treatments are created in nuclear reactors.
The problem is that LCOE is an imperfect metrics that does not take into account storage properly for grid with high percentage of renewables (that requires significantly more battery storage than current 4h window considered in LCOE). LCOE also does not account completely for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand. There is no clear metric for this, given that the cost depends on the structure of the grid itself and is specific for each country, but the Wikipedia article you posted show in the graph a very incorrect picture. Renewable (solar and wind) + storage is in the $80–150/MWh range, while nuclear is $130–200+/MWh range. It is worth noticing that nuclear cost is very high in Europe and US but can be actually very cheap (reason why china, the world leader on renewable is also world leader on new power plants). Estimation for new Chinese nuclear is at $62/MWh (https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/REupdate/20240927.php)
I am unsure why you bring this up seeing as how nuclear power can not react due to load demand and instead only provides base load power, which means other power sources are required to keep up with transient demand.
Nuclear cannot manage fast transient, but for that we have gas peaker and batteries. But nuclear can indeed work in load following mode, with most modern nuclear power plant being able to reduce the amount of power significantly and circle during the day. The French fleet, for example is required to cycle between 20% and 100% twice a day, within 30 minutes. Modern reactors ramps up at 5% each minute.
That means that they can account for changes in demand. More data here: https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf
All measures are imperfect, that doesn't mean it's totally meaningless and should be disregarded. And it also seems like you're referencing outdated data, as the cost of battery storage seriously decreased in 2025. But by any measure i can find, nuclear is significantly more expensive than renewables+storage. Regarding China, their data is generally not trustworthy on any topic, but yes I'm sure nuclear can cost a lot less there than elsewhere when you can steamroll over the citizens that would be effected by a powerplant's construction, operation, and waste storage.
I'm not an expert in this at all, but I believe that private capital isn't investing their own money in new nuclear construction, and that tells the whole story about the cost per watt of nuclear. If nuclear was cheaper per watt after all costs were considered then private capital would be building new nuclear, but they aren't, so that means it clearly isn't.
EDIT
I just looked at your link and it pretty clearly says the opposite of everything you said. Quote from the intro of your article:
And
I have never disputed that in general solar+storage is cheaper, I am disputing the data in that Wikipedia article that make it looks like it is 20 times cheaper. It is not that much cheaper, and china build lot of nuclear because grid diversification is more valuable then just making it cheaper. Production cost and energy price are independent variables and nuclear bring energy price down as it stabilizes the grid.
Storage cost is going down, but storage demand by energy produced is going up as you need much more storage then just peak hour demand as you are shutting down load following power plant generator like coal, nuclear and gas.
The link I shared is to provide the reference to $62/MWh stated above.