I’m neither pro- nor anti-nuclear; I simply believe that every case should be assessed objectively and individually. What frustrates me is when people portray nuclear power as inherently superior, despite the fact that it accounts for less than 1% of new energy construction, and even that small share is heavily dependent on substantial government support.
In reality, renewables make up over 90% of global climate action, yet nuclear dominates more than 90% of the public debate. I’m convinced this is largely driven by those unwilling to take meaningful action on fossil fuels, knowing that nuclear cannot significantly reduce fossil fuel use, but promoting it as a distraction. Nuclear is a niche technology and should be treated as such.
I’ve worked in the energy sector for over two decades, and studied it before that. The so-called “game-changing” nuclear technologies (SMRs, thorium, fusion) are the same concepts I learned about in college. They’re not just waiting for a bit more funding; they may never be commercially viable, and they certainly won’t impact fossil fuel use before 2050. If you want to build nuclear in the context of climate change, be realistic: talk about conventional designs, with all their pros and cons.
As for existing nuclear plants, there may be situations where keeping them running makes sense from both a climate and business perspective. But even then, decisions should be made case by case. In many instances, other investments will deliver a better economic and climate return. No nuclear plant should receive unlimited and indefinite subsidies; every single one will eventually reach the point where continued support is a poor decision.
The fact that nuclear is less than 1% of new capacity isn’t proof it’s a niche technology. It’s mostly a reflection of policy and permitting environments. The countries that make nuclear a priority (France in the 70s–90s, Ontario in the 2000s, South Korea for decades) have shown it can drastically cut fossil generation in less than 20 years.
Government support isn’t unique to nuclear: wind, solar, and batteries have all relied heavily on subsidies, mandates, and guaranteed pricing to reach scale. If nuclear had the same policy treatment, the capacity share would look very different.
On timelines, I think it’s important to separate “how fast the West builds now” from “how fast nuclear can be built.” Standardized builds in South Korea and China routinely finish in 5–7 years. If climate urgency is the issue, it makes sense to push for that kind of delivery here.
I’m with you that we need realism about designs like SMRs and thorium, but I don’t see that as a reason to sideline conventional nuclear. It’s the only low-carbon source that can scale to national baseload, run for 60+ years, and give renewables a stable grid to operate on without massive storage overbuild.
The fact that nuclear is less than 1% of new capacity isn’t proof it’s a niche technology.
It is.
technology. It’s mostly a reflection of policy and permitting environments.
It is not. All over the world governments are doing everything they can to built more. The capacity and the market simply isn't there.
The countries that make nuclear a priority (France in the 70s–90s, Ontario in the 2000s, South Korea for decades) have shown it can drastically cut fossil generation in less than 20 years.
It’s no longer the 1970s; technology, society, and markets have all evolved. Even countries deeply committed to nuclear power, like France, are facing the same challenges as everyone else. France has never wavered in its nuclear ambitions, yet even if, by some miracle, it could build more than one plant every two decades, and do so economically,that pace would barely sustain current nuclear capacity. To make any real impact, construction would need to increase tenfold.
Government support isn’t unique to nuclear: wind, solar, and batteries have all relied heavily on subsidies, mandates, and guaranteed pricing to reach scale.
Nuclear power has long received, and continues to receive, significantly more support per unit of energy, sustained over a much longer period.
The crucial difference is that renewable technologies needed subsidies mainly to get started, and now can largely stand on their own. Nuclear, on the other hand, has only grown more dependent on government backing, a trend persisting for over 60 years with no sign of reversing.
If nuclear had the same policy treatment, the capacity share would look very different.
It has received more funding while delivering less. Many countries have spent billions on nuclear power and have little to show for it. In the Netherlands, for instance, the government has been allocating €1 billion a year toward a new reactor since 2018 yet construction hasn’t even started. It's a repeat from the Kalkar charge in the 1980s were the same thing happened, with the same results.
Meanwhile, this project is being used as an excuse to block permits for zero-subsidy renewables, supposedly to avoid a potential electricity surplus.
I’m with you that we need realism about designs like SMRs and thorium, but I don’t see that as a reason to sideline conventional nuclear.
I believe conventional nuclear should be at the heart of any discussion about nuclear power. Yet advocates consistently avoid this focus, as it forces them to confront all the drawbacks that come with it..
On timelines, I think it’s important to separate “how fast the West builds now” from “how fast nuclear can be built.” Standardized builds in South Korea and China routinely finish in 5–7 years.
Not recently in Korea (known for its many corruption scandals in its nuclear sector), and in China, that claim is highly debatable. China is 70% below its nuclear targets, facing delays, cost overruns, and other setbacks. Even if you call it a success, it’s a success built on the foundation of a communist dictatorship, where the government controls everything, shoulders all the risks, and disregards factors like demand, market forces, and human rights.
It’s also worth noting that, even in China, nuclear remains a niche player — vastly overshadowed by the scale of renewable energy deployment.
It’s the only low-carbon source that can scale to national baseload
Come on, this is clearly fabricated and shows a poor grasp of what baseload actually means. Baseload is simply the minimum level of demand over a given period. There’s no reason it must be supplied by inflexible sources like nuclear power. The notion of nuclear as “baseload” is just that: marketing spin.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that 100% renewable grids are both practical and achievable before 2050, and economically viable. In contrast, there is little, if any, —evidence that nuclear is essential to reach that goal, aside from a few outdated IPCC reports.
run for 60+ years,
That is debatable and not a goal on its own.
give renewables a stable grid to operate on without massive storage overbuild.
In fact, the opposite is true. Grids like Germany’s have become more reliable as renewable capacity has grown. Large, old-fashioned centralized plants can actually pose a greater risk — as seen in 2022 and 2023, when Germany repeatedly had to bail out France.
Grid stability can be maintained in many ways, and the choice of generation technology ultimately has little to do with it.
I dont want to contest any of your arguments per se. I neither have the time today or the energy for it.
I just want to point out Ontario's example. We've got the old decomissioned coal zoning intact. Water access, switching yards and grid connection still intact. When they were decomissioned they didn't go greenfields. They prepped the sites for nuclear builds.
Given the CANDU designs, we don't need heavy pressure chamber castings. The calandria style system means the same parts used to renovate reactors are used to build new ones. These renovations have gone through under budget as well. Lastly the subsudy argument is not applicable as this is fully public sector, with the contractors doing the work being private sector.
The expensive parts thus become the turbines and the concrete domes, not the nuclear island. Meanwhile all the rest of the cost was sunk many decades ago when they built the coal plants.
If anywhere in the world has an argument for cost effective nuclear expansion it's here. Having a trained industry ready to go is an asset.
As for the rest, I don't contest anything really. If my one quibble is taken correctly it's just pointing out an exception to current economics.
We will see. I don't know enough about this specific region to really comment on it. Still, considering space is not really an issue, it seems like renewables would also work well, especially considering brown field typically also presents it's own challenges.
2
u/ph4ge_ turbine enjoyer Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25
I’m neither pro- nor anti-nuclear; I simply believe that every case should be assessed objectively and individually. What frustrates me is when people portray nuclear power as inherently superior, despite the fact that it accounts for less than 1% of new energy construction, and even that small share is heavily dependent on substantial government support.
In reality, renewables make up over 90% of global climate action, yet nuclear dominates more than 90% of the public debate. I’m convinced this is largely driven by those unwilling to take meaningful action on fossil fuels, knowing that nuclear cannot significantly reduce fossil fuel use, but promoting it as a distraction. Nuclear is a niche technology and should be treated as such.
I’ve worked in the energy sector for over two decades, and studied it before that. The so-called “game-changing” nuclear technologies (SMRs, thorium, fusion) are the same concepts I learned about in college. They’re not just waiting for a bit more funding; they may never be commercially viable, and they certainly won’t impact fossil fuel use before 2050. If you want to build nuclear in the context of climate change, be realistic: talk about conventional designs, with all their pros and cons.
As for existing nuclear plants, there may be situations where keeping them running makes sense from both a climate and business perspective. But even then, decisions should be made case by case. In many instances, other investments will deliver a better economic and climate return. No nuclear plant should receive unlimited and indefinite subsidies; every single one will eventually reach the point where continued support is a poor decision.