A nuclear reactor consists of many thousands of bespoke parts. If one is faulty, at the very least the whole thing is shut down while millions are spent replacing it, or possibly it kills a lot of people. Building terawatts of nuclear involves making each part thousands of times, and the penalty for iteration is thousands of man hours for validation as well as potentially shutting down every power plant with that part. If there is a major systematic flaw you are out 5-20c/kWh and years of output.

Comparing overnight costs to final all-in prices is one way nukebros love to lie.

You're also pretending operating costs don't exist.

You're also pretending that costs for a solar project in 2015-2019 are costs today. This is another blatant lie.

Longevity is another lie. The median and mean ages of the plants that actually get completed is around 30 years, not 60. The average for nuclear plants that are paid for is even lower because so many do not open at all.

Thankyou for demonstrating.

Bit odd not to notice all the lies he's telling even after they're pointed out, he doubles down on them, and then they're disproven.

> Those who oppose nuclear power fall in two camps: people who honestly believe there is something insurmountable about nuclear technology, and antihumanists, who think humanity as a whole is bad, and the planet would be much better if we were fewer, the fewer the better (see for example Club of Rome [1]).

rather than engaging with reality.

So a 100MW plant in the US quoted at $110 million including the cost of finance, profit margin, regulatory compliance, insurance and transmission with a capacity factor of 27% has 130MW DC of modules. Some other countries will quote DC so there may be a discrepancy. You can find harmonized comparions in things like the IRENA generation costs report, the ITRPV or the frauenhofer photovoltaics report. The US is also almost all single axis tracking where other countries may have fixed tilt as dominant.

New fixed tilt utility solar in 2023 is about 50-60c/Wdc or 80c/Wac. Single axis is about 70c/Wdc or $1/Wac.

The chinese nuclear project doesn't include inflation since 2008 (40%), cost of finance/escalation, chinese-government-accounting, or insurance. The (admitted) costs per watt of the chinese nuclear program have also increased substantially since 2008. Even with these, the claimed capex per MWh is comparable to solar in the west, but the O&M would make it much more expensive. Solar in china is 20-50% cheaper than the west.

Similarly costs for older nuclear plants in the US tend to exclude the cost of finance/escalation, as well as costs that were paid after they were "finished" due to upgrades needed for reliability (early capacity factors were <50%) and safety due to lessons learnt in incidents like browns ferry.

In the west O&M is about $30/MWh, which overlaps with the all-in cost of solar.

Also note that the cost of the Turkey facility you mentioned includes a factory which will produce many times more modules.

https://www.irena.org/Publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-...

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost...

€11bn for 1.6GW on a European nuke that will run about 70% of the time and statistically will close in around 30 years while costing $30/MWh for O&M is around 16c/kwh

How is paying extra to ramp at 5%/min once a day "faster than" being able to switch off in seconds and back on in a minute like a wind turbine, or turn on and off in milliseconds as many times as you like like a PV inverter or even stopping starting in minutes like a reciprocating or OCGT peaker or ramping 0-100% in minutes repeatedly like hydro?

It's not made from water, it's made from fossil gas.

All these schemes to increase demand aren't about making electrolysers to replace existing grey hydrogen, they're ahout selling grey hydrogen.

Cube square law also makes small scale hydrogen storage more expensive than batteries.

Then you're back to limited niche uses, or needing expensive, leaky distribution.

The best use of hydrogen for seasonal arbitrage is making it into sponge iron and ammonia for steel and fertiliser then storing that. Then your seasonal-cadence variability is gone.

The supposed overwhelming advantage results in saving 20 minutes on a 1000km trip (if nobody else used the hydrogen station before you, otherwise fuelling times are the same).

With current state of the art batteries being put into next model cars that last bit goes away too.

In what possible world do hydrogen passenger cars have a future?

Lower cost than that, there are C-grade prismatic cells. Usb/12V adapters exist for a single cell as well, although i'm not sure if they are in that form factor.

Sure it's a special order, but it's a special case.

Wild.

It's a very obvious attempt to spread the myth that reprocessing somehow magically makes the entire mass of SNF fissile and will magically make all the fission products go away.

Which you doubled down on twice, before backpedalling and claiming you never meant that the *other* 99% of the waste wasn't waste and "partially spent" actually means "has a few leftover dregs that don't make a meaningful difference".

You jumped to a ship two orders of magnitude larger and then insisted LNG carrying was mass limited, not volume limited.

I did not forget anything, merely pointed out the bizarre attempts to mislead.

It does neither.

Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetorical techniques do not change this.