> And large scale renewables + battery storage are good enough.

I wish this were true, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that it is. Up here in Minnesota, we heat our homes with natural gas. Once that's converted to electric, that's a _lot_ of energy to generate and store, and it has to be absolutely reliable for six straight months or you're talking mass death. Nuclear seems like a perfect fit for this scenario. I think it's a poor choice to take it off the table.

Generating green hydrogen with renewables and then burning it in combined cycle plants would be cheaper than Vogtle-level nuclear.

Maybe. The thing about nuclear reactors is that the fuel cost is nearly zero on account of how little of it you need. Even with reprocessing, it is still <$0.01/kWh. So nearly all cost with nuclear is upfront. Mass production of nuclear power plants will drive that down dramatically. Nuclear, if done at scale, is can be very cheap.

So having a stable source of cheap electricity that can be built in nearly any location is still a good idea. Even in a world with super cheap green hydrogen.

With nuclear you're burning your powerplant, essentially. That the fuel is comparatively cheap is irrelevant, since that's not what's dominating the cost of power.

That's what I said. It's the cost of the powerplant that drives nuclear's cost. But you can reduce that dramatically via mass production of power plants. It will be a cheap source of electricity if done right. And we don't want just one energy source for everything anyways.

It's not at all clear mass production of nuclear power plants will reduce cost. This has not been demonstrated. It runs counter to economies of scale from large power plants.

You pick one reactor design and make dozens of them. That will be much cheaper than building a bespoke reactor type every time.

Again, this has not been demonstrated. Nuclear in France showed negative experience effects.

A lot of that is just anti-nuclear propaganda. Nuclear in France does not have major problems.

I'm sorry, you don't get to dismiss inconvenient facts by calling them "propaganda".

There's no such thing as a perfect solution. The problems people keep on bringing up are minor and do not qualify as serious problems.

The problem is that you are comparing a hypothetical with a proven system. Nuclear works, and works in large scale in a lot of places - heavy users include France, Lithuania, Sweden and Belgium.

One can argue about costs, but costs are at least low enough to be viable, otherwise these countries couldn't exist as they do. You can say that the costs are being externalized to taxes or some other place, but these societies are being able to absorb these costs in aggregate. Nuclear might not be cheaper than gas and oil, but it's possible to build a modern industrial society with nuclear.

Now contrast with green hydrogen generation and battery storage, for instance. These approaches aren't working in country-level scales anywhere. We compare hypotheticals with systems that, despite problems, costs and limitations, are known to work.

France has massive problems with their reactors and leads the world with only 62.6% from nuclear. A comparable number to Denmark that has almost no hydro power. There are several countries with higher percentage of renewables up to 100%.

Costs aren't the only problem, new nuclear reactors simply cannot be build fast enough to counteract the climate crisis.

> France has massive problems with their reactors and leads the world with only 62.6% from nuclear.

Yet, France consistently produces half of Germany's CO2 per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...

I would consider that a giant success of nuclear energy.

> A comparable number to Denmark that has almost no hydro power.

Denmark is not relevant - they import giant majority of their energy. Right now they barely produce at all: https://i.imgur.com/69SI5J9.png

> Costs aren't the only problem, new nuclear reactors simply cannot be build fast enough to counteract the climate crisis.

They could be build fast enough if we did it _seriously_, and not as vanity projects.

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2027347/south-korea-s... Is the suggestion to just import the energy?

Are you talking about consumption or production?

In term of production a country can easily go above 100% renewable by selling a lot of it during periods of optimal conditions. Naturally, a country can not above 100% in terms of consumption. Denmark for example is a massive exporter in terms of production, but also a massive importer in terms of consumption and has a very large dependency on imports. They are not self sufficient despite producing more energy that they themselves consume.

Iceland both produces and consumes 100% electricity from renewables for instance.

You have the issue you talk about with all generation that isn’t load-following, including nuclear. France solves this by exporting subsidized electricity in time of low demand while importing in time of high demand, which is winter. In the surrounding countries like Italy and Germany you have gas-plants that jump in when needed.

Nuclear and renewables/batteries actually have the same biggest problem: the vast majority of the cost of future energy is up front capital costs. That’s what makes natural gas so attractive: the vast majority of costs are fuel amortized over the lifetime of power generation.

That’s the thing we need to fix regardless of the power source.

> or risk

That really casts doubt on your assertions. Nuclear carries significantly fewer risks than coal (which operates in the nuclear failure state all the time).

Nobody's arguing in favor of building more coal plants. The fact that nuclear is better than coal is irrelevant to the discussion of what new plants to build.