The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices.
Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If we want to reduce climate change only nuclear is the way to go - not solar/battery.
I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Need to consider a nuclear plant may have a 60 year life whereas panels would be 20 at best and batteries probably less.
Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
Ultimately it's about energy return on investment.
Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included.
Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision.
And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too.
It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue.
And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
It's not about cutting corners but regulating nuclear only to the extent that it is as safe as the next best alternative rather than orders of magnitude safer and until the point it is uneconomic.
This is good for regulatory discussions and historical context:
The regulations imposed on nuclear in many places are absurd and not justified by any actual risk incurred. Especially considering the implications if the same regulations were imposed on coal plants - see e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... .
Anyone who cares about numbers isn't going to form their opinions reading HN in 2024, the debate for them has been settled since the 1980s. We're in a 40 year run where people who can invest in nuclear reactors are better off than people who do not.
If there is anything to talk about seriously it hasn't come up on HN in the last few years. The last time something happened that moved the needle on whether there was any real policy question by the numbers was probably Chernobyl.
I wonder though how much is it that nuclear was helping economically, and how much was it that an already strong economy could afford to splurge on nuclear?
Couldn't disagree more. The point you're making boils down to saying that because it's complicated, we can't rely on reason and rather have to go with gut feeling.
The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades.
You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications.
I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story.
But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.
Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If we want to reduce climate change only nuclear is the way to go - not solar/battery.
I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Need to consider a nuclear plant may have a 60 year life whereas panels would be 20 at best and batteries probably less.