mpweiher

> .. fifty different generic reusable parts ..

Very interesting. Any idea what those parts are and/or how they work?

> If new nuclear was cheap and quick, why are the recently proposed western subsidies tens of billions per reactor?

They aren't, and some guarantees are necessary, because VEE subsidies have dramatically distorted the markets. Even the cheapest producer cannot compete with subsidized overproduction that drives prices to zero or negative, with the government picking up the decidedly non-zero cost for just those producers that are causing the problem.

And you are projecting the reality of VEE subsidies onto nuclear.

I asked Google AI if subsidies for intermittent renewables in Germany will fall:

Total volatile renewable energy (VRE) subsidies in Germany are projected to rise significantly in the short-to-medium term (peaking around 2029 at over €22 billion), driven by falling wholesale electricity prices and legacy contract obligations.

In the long term, direct generation subsidies are legally structured to fall as older contracts expire, but the total public financial burden will likely remain high or shift into different mechanisms—such as grid infrastructure funding, battery storage incentives, and backup power plant strategies—to keep the structurally unprofitable intermittent energy system viable.

I am not going to follow you Gish gallop and debunk every single "study" that uses the same old wrong assumptions to make nuclear look bad.

As an example, the Australian CSIRO "study" you cite is deeply flawed.

1. Incorrect lifetime assumptions

It assumes nuclear power plants only last 30-35 years. In reality they last 80-100 years. So they are actually 3x cheaper than reported. Same trick as used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"

2. Incorrect assumptions about sunk costs

The report incorrectly treats already spent capital costs (on renewable infrastructure) as "free".

3. Underestimation of system costs

The report incorrectly averages metrics over longer time periods and thus vastly underestimates the costs of intermittency.

4. Incorrect capacity factors for nuclear.

Capacity factors between 50-80% are assumed. In reality even the world-wide average is over 80% and well-run fleets like in the US are over 90%. Again, same shady trick used in the infamous Fraunhofer ISE "study"

So same-old same-old. And as I said before: not going to debunk every single instance of always-the-same disinformation.

Denmark is now looking at nuclear, because the renewables-only strategy has failed.

https://kernekraftalliancen.dk/en/#myths

The only one straying from reality is you, and yes, your misinformation is tiring.

The nuclear renaissance is in full swing.

FACT SHEET: The Golden Era of American Nuclear Energy Has Arrived

https://www.energy.gov/articles/fact-sheet-golden-era-americ...

2026/09/25 | The Nuclear Renaissance: Financing the Global Expansion

https://fiasi.org/events/event/2026-09-25-the-nuclear-renais...

The nuclear power renaissance in the 21st century: Analyzing past trends, present status, and future outlook

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026NucAn...500231A/abstra...

Clear-Eyed about Nuclear Renaissance

https://events.weforum.org/en/events/world-economic-forum-an...

> Not sure why you're restricting yourself to only solar and batteries in northern european climate.

I didn't. The post I was responding to compared solar + batteries to nuclear.

Completely incorrectly, it turns out.

Realistic studies show that grids including nuclear are a LOT cheaper.

> There's no point having the grid be an ideological purity test

The only ones who are doing this are the anti-nuclear ideologues.

> Because the problem for nuclear is that it never solved dispatchability.

That is just comically wrong. Intermittent renewables are not dispatchable. Nuclear is.

> How many hundreds of billions in subsidies and decades wasted until we reach "NOAK with an experienced workforce and robust supply chain"

None. Nuclear is cheap and quick and investments in nuclear not wasted.

We have wasted decades going down the wrong path. As an example, Germany has spent almost 25 years on the failed "Energiewende" and we haven't even completed the easy half. Nuclear did not require subsidies. Intermitten renewables anywhere from €30-50 billion just in subsidies. Per year.

France converted its electricity grid to nuclear in 15 years. For a total of €228 billion in 2011 money. Not "per year", not "subsidies". But total investment.

If you can point me to an NOAK-build that was built with an experienced workforce and robust supply chain.

Otherwise, you are just making the circular argument that because we haven't built we shouldn't build. That makes no sense.

And yes, nuclear for all capacity makes a lot more sense than intermittent renewables for all capacity. But a more balanced mix tends to work out better.

> €72.8 billion,

For 6 EPR. Each EPR has 1.67 GWe. So 10.02 GW for €72.8 billion or €7.2 billion per GWe. Less than what I wrote. Versus €20-80 billion/GW for solar without firming.

As I thought.

So you claim as representative, not the average and not the median of nuclear power plants.

But the most expensive nuclear power plants ever produced.

Even without knowing any details about those plants, that's either statistical illiteracy or malpractice. Take your pick.

And it doesn't get better when you know the details:

- The ones you picked were all First of a Kind build (FOAK). So prototypes. It is well-documented that FOAK builds typically are 50% more expensive and longer to build than serialized builds (Nth of a Kind, NOAK). These were more around 100% longer than NOAK, for a bunch of reasons.

- A number of these were the EPR. The EPR has since been discontinued, because the manufacturer found it too hard to build. It has been replaced by the highly simplified EPR2. How is a discontinued reactor type representative of future builds?

- All of these builds were in countries that had a long hiatus in nuclear construction, so had to build up experience in the workforce, supply chain and regulators, so FOAK on steroids. Even the most experienced, France, had a gap of 18 years between the start of the previous build and the start of FV3.

- All of these builds had regulatory changes during the construction process. Sometimes massive changes, for example over 4000 changes for HPC in the UK. And not trivial things: the concrete of the outer protective shell had to be increased by 40% or something. Which has knock-on effects, because now things inside don't quite fit any longer. etc.

- New construction techniques such as modularization, factory production etc. all decrease the cost of serialized builds, but vastly increase the risk during First of a Kind builds.

And of course you are comparing installed capacity, which is an almost completely irrelevant metric. In the UK, capacity factors for solar are between 9-12%. So you have to multiply your solar numbers by 10 just to get equivalent output on average. Except average is not good enough. There is winter, there is night, there are clouds. 4h of battery are not going to get you through winter.

And you "forgot" that nuclear power plants last much, much longer than solar installations, at least twice as long, more likely 3 times and possible 4 times. All of the plants in the US that have applied have been approved for 80 years of operations, they are now looking at 100 years and see no significant problems.

So without even taking into account new developments, you have to divide the nuclear numbers you gave by 2 and multiply the numbers for PV you gave by at least 20-80 (and that's not covering winter yet).

So $8B/GW vs. $20-80B/GW without any firming.

And which is why the price for installed capacity is not the right metric at all.

The cost of a kWh delivered reliably 24/7 is the right metric. And there nuclear shines.

And intermittents are simply not up to the job. Which is why pretty much the entire world is giving up on the fantasy of supplying an advanced industrial society using only intermittent renewables. And even the most hard-core greens are coming around, as TFA.

As I wrote: Germany's nuclear power plants delivered reliable electricity at below 2 cents per kWh.

Interesting claims. Where are you getting those numbers?

And do you actually believe they are comparable?

German nuclear plants were producing for less than 2 cents/ kWh. Firm, day + night, summer + winter, profitable.

Intermittent renewables cost multiples of that and require massive subsidies on top and are allowed to place the burden of their intermittency on the firm producers on top of that.

Do you think FV3 is a representative sample?

Second best time is now.

> ... but now nuclear power is too expensive compared with renewables

It's not.

And 2 electron apps.

I think the idea is correct, but hard to retrofit, you sort of have to have it there from the start.

Objective-Smalltalk runs on the Objective-C runtime, so Objective-Smalltalk methods look like Objective-C methods accessed via objc_msgSend() to the entire rest of the system, including to other Objective-Smalltalk code.

That means it doesn't really matter to the rest of the system if any particular method is interpreted, AOT-compiled or JIT-compiled. They can't tell, except for execution speed.

And of course the execution model includes machine primitives, which the interpreter also deals with but doesn't make faster, but the native compilers do.

I think you may have missed the main findings:

• Stereotypically feminine sentences are consistently attributed to female writers.

• Stereotypically masculine sentences are often attributed to female writers.

• Forms of violence central to the gender parity debate are deemed less acceptable than objectively worse forms of violence.

• Inclusivity efforts may have generated unintended forms of discrimination.

They don't have to "compete" with Starlink. They just have to provide similar capabilities.

And Ariane used to be the dominant commercial launch vehicle, beating the US alternatives by a mile.

There is also Eutelsat Web with > 600 satellites in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb

And Iris2, with launches to commence in 2029:

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS²

They are:

https://www.techradar.com/phones/network-providers/europes-m...

And Europe can get things done if it wants to. Ariane had reached 50% of commercial GTO launches in 2010.

...the Arianespace consortium "all but invented the commercial launch business in the 1980s" principally "by ignoring U.S. government assurances that the reusable U.S. space shuttle would make expendable launch vehicles like Ariane obsolete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...

SpaceX has disrupted that, but once the innovation is out there it can be replicated.