Hacker News Reader

It's depressing how much stuff is based on vibes.

Nuclear loses on pure accounting and time to build.

It loses on accounting if you assign zero cost to the million+ lives that carbon emitting power generation takes every year, and the long term, possibly irreversible damage it does to the planet. If you factor in those two things even 1%, nuclear wins hands down

Cost of recent nuclear power in the UK comes in at $130/mwh at best. Where wind and solar are coming in at $50-80/MWh.

So for the same rate of investment you can decarbonize 2-3 times faster. And that doesn't figure the long lead times for nuclear vs solar, wind and batteries.

Does $50/MWh account for intermittency (i.e. the capital cost of building and running CCGT to cover the load when it's not sunny or windy)?

China is doing nuclear for around $66/MWh. That's a UK a problem, not a nuclear one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com