Studying history. The cost of nuclear was low until we stopped building 50 years ago.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u...

It's a pity -- if we had kept up the pace, we'd already have completely decarbonized our grid, but instead we are barely starting. Ah well. At least solar and wind finally became economical. Any path forward is a good path, even if it's 50 years late.

At the moment, coal and probably gas is more expensive than solar, purely due to the turbines and generators.

Nuclear relies on the same subsystems, and it’s unlikely they’ll get significantly cheaper any time soon.

Having said that, I think nuclear could be made cost-competitive with coal and natural gas, at least in theory. Also, it’s unclear that we’ll be able to build a reliable, net carbon negative power grid without a large number of nuclear plants.

Solar cannot provide reliable power. It's cheaper because it doesn't solve a massive part of the problem.

Do the actual math on what it takes to get a reliable solar kWh onto the grid and suddenly it's a lot more expensive.

Perhaps they were in France, where the plants are neither bespoke nor expensive.

They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

I had a professor in an facilities course mention the improved level of industrialization of nuclear plant construction as a big reason why France managed to be successful with nuclear energy in a way that other countries have not. If so, is this one of those dreaded examples of the free market failing our actual best interests?

?? How does that show a failure of the free market??

The French government, through the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives, played a key role in standardization of civilian nuclear plants and, to my knowledge, the United States had no true parallel and instead relied on private companies to figure that amongst themselves. We all know how that tends to turn out.

I'm sorry but if you think the US had a "free market" for nuclear power, you're an idiot.

I actually thought nothing and was curious enough to ask for clarity, as clearly demonstrated. But if you're the type to read into the question what you want just so you can call me an "idiot", that makes you a pretty special type of asshole there buddy.

Your question was full of self righteous snark and your response to my question was as well. Trying to tell me you were just "curious" and "asking for clarity" is 100% bullshit and you know it. If you want to actually engage in a conversation, drop the snark and I'll be happy to have a pleasant conversation with you. Otherwise, I guess we'll both have to be assholes.

Or you could ask if my use of the word "dreaded" was sarcastic, because it wasn't.

I believe it was Mill who insisted that one should be able to argue the other side of a topic as well as the one they prefer :)

I still don't see you making any constructive comment. If you're going to, make it your next one please. If you want an answer to your original rhetorical-looking question. The answer is no.

How much did they cost in France? How much do they cost?

> They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

That all sounds good as a first impression, but I've learned to ask: Are those the primary bottlenecks and costs?

EPR has been a total disaster, to the point where the state took over Areva.

France is past tense so, they have one reactor under conszruction and 6 proposed and not even planned...