I was pretty into nuclear as well but it's pretty obvious that solar/wind with battery storage is the future. For the price of a single reactor you can build out like 5x the capacity with other renewables. That's also accounting for the down periods.

It's kinda fitting that NOW trump jumps on board with nuclear, once the data says it isn't really necessary anymore. It's possible we can maybe build some useful small reactors for some stuff, but yeah.

Don't forget to count storage and grid updates.

Nuclear doesn’t work in a market based electricity market. The capital costs are high and it’s difficult to make money if you aren’t paying down those expenses.

IMO, the old style regulated public utilities were cheaper and more reliable.

Nuclear is a renewable, and of course it still makes sense to build it out. In what world do you think our energy needs plateau? I'm always so surprised to see this 1970s hippie attitude making a comeback, especially since it makes less sense today than ever before.

I think it makes a lot of sense to build out if the construction and remediation costs are born by a persistent entity that can amortize all those expenses appropriately. It makes almost no sense to build out if your entire energy market is privatized into small entities and you lack the regulatory willpower to ensure proper cleanup funds are reserved and thus open up a loophole for companies to run with minimal costs after construction and disburse funds internally freely. Such was the case with Vermont Yankee and it is very possible (likely even) that it'd be repeated.

If you have a strong central governance authority that can ensure proper maintenance and remediation then they're wonderful... France and China have these advantages - Japan was often held up as a paragon of this approach until massive internal mismanagement was revealed with Fukushima.

I am excited to see my country (Canada) investing more into Nuclear energy as we have a track record (ignore our uranium mining please) of doing this responsibly. I don't think America could safely manage this especially with the destabilization the current administration and lack of legislative backbone has demonstrated is possible.

This is the first time I'm accused to be a 70's Hippie. I graciously accept the compliment ;)

BTW: Is this some kind of new alchemy I don't know about ? How exactly do you renew fissile or fusion-able material ?

We can probably agree that renewable is a misnomer, sine yesterday's sunlight isn't magically showing up again - it's new light from the same sun. Once the sun dims, we are in big doo-doo.

But for fission: fission end products are either useless for future energy production, or require fairly messy breeder reactors that, as I understand it, do not lend themselves to nice modularization and reconditioning that stuff isn't particularly easy (Sellafield may be a good example of how horrifyingly costly all this is). And the end fission products are never the same as the input, so I would like to understand better how you see fission as a "renewable" source.

Also, just to understand the logic in:

"Nuclear is a renewable, and of course it still makes sense to build it out."

Why? A lot of "renewables", like underwater tide plants, should probably not be built out, at least right now, because the economics are just not supporting it. Just because something is "renewable" does not automatically mean we should "of course" building it. that would be the real 70s hippie attitude we so eschew on hacker news.