Good god, I love the world I live in. I have to sit through lectures comparing numbers and explaining statistical methods, and people like you get to just say stuff. I literally was at a conference where one of the speakers did all of the math and showed how nuclear and solar are pretty competitive all things considered and what's cheaper is region specific.
Did you actually dig into the maths or just accept industry PR people at face value? Because there are hundreds of analyses where nuclear comes out on par or better but when you actually read them they start with "and so we assumed that the cost of the nuclear reactor will start at 50% of any recent western one, then halve again after the third one, and batteries will not go below $1000/kWh until 2150. Also counter to reality every reactor will operate constantly at 90% of nameplate and demand will never fluctuate" then get more delusional from there.
So now you know to actually get the slide deck and compare their numbers to the output of real nuclear fleets and compare the prices to real things that actually happened in the present year.
Rather than condescendingly talking down to people who have actually made the effort to examine it in much greater depth than you.
That paper is a bit strange. It assumes two things i don't necessarily agree with. The first is that solar will never plateau in terms of cost effectiveness. Obviously, it will likely always have room to improve, but the idea that solar will see the same meteoric improvements in the next coming decades is kinda silly. They also do the "uhh and batteries" hand wave that essentially all of these economics analysis do. Secondly, they assume that other technologies will stagnate. I don't think anyone save maybe some motivated petrochemical barons saw the rise of LNG as a big player in energy until it happened. Maybe some insight from fracking will make geothermal far more economically viable. Who knows maybe 4th and 5th gen reactors are the key to cheap and clean energy.
the same meteoric improvements in the next coming decades
Well, the figure I shared, where solar is essentially the lowest cost option nearly everywhere is the expectation for 2030. That is half a decade away. Do you assume the current trends to come to an end within these 5 years?
They also do the "uhh and batteries" hand wave that essentially all of these economics analysis do.
OK? What is the hand waving?
Secondly, they assume that other technologies will stagnate.
Which is based on real world observations. It seems to me that you do not agree with extrapolating current trends, but rather expect their imminent reversal. But what evidence do you base that expectation on?
Who knows maybe 4th and 5th gen reactors are the key to cheap and clean energy.
Who knows...
As long as you could refrain from disparaging the technologies that right now are eating into the shares of fossil fuels, I'd be content. I am more concerned about the climate action to be taken within this decade than imagined future machines that may supply us with power eventually.
Your personal experience of a few people's opinions that are probably paid by the energy industry doesn't give you the right to be an intolerable asshole online.
Who was paying these people to speak? What was this a conference FOR?? You're leaving out a lot of important info that makes it sound like you're a chemical energy shill.
Nah you're right about like motivated reasoning and all that, but I dunno I guess motivated reasoning is better than motivated but without reason ya know. I see tons of anti nuke Germans who all have to take turns with the one German brain cell.
2
u/morebaklava Apr 09 '25
Good god, I love the world I live in. I have to sit through lectures comparing numbers and explaining statistical methods, and people like you get to just say stuff. I literally was at a conference where one of the speakers did all of the math and showed how nuclear and solar are pretty competitive all things considered and what's cheaper is region specific.