>Cheap-er, not cheap.

Can we please not have these "slightly improved language" comments? You're arguing against something I didn't say and making a meaningless nitpick on word choice.

you literally said "cheap" and the comment said "cheap-er not cheap". I think the comment is correct and you are wrong. China is building the same design again and again and again. And it's still not cheap.

tbh i don't think either the original or improved language post is presenting effectively because they both just give a conclusion without any nuance, explanation or support. "cheap" cheaper who cares? $/kwh matter. transmission costs matter.

Who doesn't say nuclear is more expensive?

The lowest LCOE for nuclear is to the right of the most expensive solar plus storage.

If you have credible figures then present them with citations. Otherwise you're just hand waving.

I don't think anyone will dispute that the initial build out for solar is far far cheaper. That much is self evident to everyone. The devil is in the rest of the details.

No.

>I don't think anyone will dispute that the initial build out for solar is far far cheaper.

OK.

>The devil is in the rest of the details.

Now, this is "hand wavy" instead of answering my question and pointing to sources who refute the up thread claim that nuclear will be "cheap" v. alternatives.

Do you have an LCOE study showing nuclear as "cheap"?

i'm sorry it came across that way. let me rephrase.

"cheap" to me implies it is affordable in a relative sense, compared to other options. It will almost certainly never be cheap - even if we make it cheaper through more production, it is going to remain in the group of the least affordable power generation technologies.