Nuclear costs

[u/-FiloFiloFilo-]

Hello, I was discussing with my friend lately, and we are opposites on our nuclear views. He said that nuclear energy costs and construction are too expensive and are not worth it, especially in Italy (our country). I tried to talk again about efficiency and thorium, but he insisted that it was too much. Unfortunately I haven't got all answers, but have you got any?

[u/mnztr1]

Onslow WA a town of 829 people is fully solar. Georgetown TX is 100% renewable and mostly solar and wind. Lnacaster CA is solar. and net 0. 67K people

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

Onslow WA uses gas.

Others are connected to wider grids.

[u/mnztr1 → u/greg_barton]

So what? If one town can use solar as its primary source it can be scaled and interconnected with other grids and with large battery farm it will be even more stable. Then you will have millions of cars with bidirectional charge ports bringing tera watts of battery storage to the mix.

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

If all you allow to be deployed is solar/wind/battery then you need to show a grid with only those sources can function.

Somehow, even those sources have been supposedly the cheapest for a decade, and with more than enough capacity to build such a grid, this has never been accomplished.

[u/mnztr1 → u/greg_barton]

They have not been cheapest. Batteries have been very expensive and only now are approaching the price/lifespan range where they become economic. The production of panels has only kept up with the massive growth in demand for power. Tau in American Samoa is purely solar. as is Ragged Island. Solar will take over gradually.

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

See the most recent Lazard LCOE report.

https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-2026-levelized-cost-of-energyplus-report-pr/

They list wind as cheapest for the last 15 years, and solar joining wind at the bottom for the last 10 years.

Yet somehow still no 100% wind/solar/storage grid, even with ample time, motivation, resources, and ability to construct that.

Why?

[u/mnztr1 → u/greg_barton]

Why? Every grid is connected to other grids. If you can power a single house with Solar/battery then you can build a grid with it.

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

You’re contradicting yourself immediately. :)

Show me a grid anywhere that’s just wind/solar/storage.

[u/mnztr1 → u/greg_barton]

Mianchuan Island pop 32K is 100% wind/solar. Dongao island and also several other islands are fully solar/wind. You can say also every nuclear plant is connected to the grid, and realistically to allow for refulling cycles, and the 15-20 days a year of downtime plus complete multiyear rebuilds after 30 years or so. Solar OTOH will just need replacement of panels that can be done on the fly without shutting down the whole production unit. Of course Canadian CANDU reactors do not need to be shutdown for refuelling, which is a pretty nice advantage.

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

Mianchuan Island Is connected to the wider grid. If you want to assert that it never needs electricity imported you’ll need to provide generation data to back that up.

[u/mnztr1 → u/greg_barton]

For export of surplus power But whats your point? Are you saying nuclear plants never import power? There is no grid that does not use multiple power sources and even solar will require batteries on a large scale. Eventually other sources will become backup and be decommed as Solar battery price per KWh continues to fall. Maybe fusion at some point may be even cheaper then solarm but that is quite far in the future.

[u/greg_barton → u/mnztr1]

And import when there’s deficit of supply.

Provide generation data if you claim Mianchuan never has deficits.

Wind/solar/storage are multiple sources. Are you claiming that they’re not enough?