dalyons

Nah, it’s coz they were almost all built in an era before renewables became cheaper than coal in the last few years.

A one party state where the plants are owned, insured, backstopped and cleaned up for free by the government doesn’t have the same economics as free market builds.

And even with all that their total share of nuclear is declining y/&y and projected to continue to decline. Because it’s still too expensive even for a autocracy

Or they could get with the times and build a ton of battery like California. Down to 25% fossil in 2026 due to the massive success of shifting solar into the night with batteries.

the answers exist, euro states just can’t get out of their own way and actually build things

Australian electricity in 2026 is about 45% renewable. And rising fast. 40% of Australian homes have rooftop solar. How is this “not much progress”? Yes more could be done but that is massive progress

Also, I’m not sure what point you’re making about public opinions. They’ve soured because it’s an economicly uncompetitive option, plus some safety fears. Seems rational to me.

Nuke fanboys hate this one weird trick (economics)

The peak of ICE car sales (which includes hybrids) was in 2017 and it’s been downhill since then, and it’s going to plummet from here as EV share keeps growing rapidly. Bev share is growing significantly faster than hybrid. I personally wouldn’t be betting my company on a rapidly shrinking market

I find this a correct and astute observation, and I don’t think you’re getting enough credit for it. I started noticing this SV C level groupthink a few years ago too. It’s just so _weird_ how lockstep everyone is, it’s like there isn’t a single original thought amongst today’s leaders. Just copy, mimic, converge, repeat. Same ideas, same moves (layoffs of exactly 10-20%) same org structures (flattening!) same team structures (smaller teams with AI!) same same . It’s almost creepy, and if I was more of a conspiracy theorist it would be easy to believe in shadowy leadership cabals orchestrating everything.

It didn’t used to be this way - say circa 2006-2015 you had so much more diversity in the style and ideas of leadership. Eg early Dorsey, early zuck, all these other ceos at that time trying all kinds of wild and whacky ideas of how to run their companies. I’m not sure why this convergence happened, but now everyone’s singing from the same hymn sheet, it’s anti-innovation, and I hate it.

Is that supposed to be an example of a good decision? Outside the US hybrids are quickly becoming irrelevant. The decision is looking like it will cost Toyota the crown

How about you try to explain how this changes the economics of nuclear, and I’ll wait.

You just keep moving the goalposts and not responding to arguments. Until you have some idea of how nuclear is ever going to be cost competitive on today’s grids, good day to you.

This is some “both sides” absolute bullshit. The Biden administration passed the IRA, huge incentives for personal and commercial renewable energy production, EVs, all kinds of things.

Trump is paying people to burn more coal, blocking solar, canceling wind.

Could the dems have done more, sure. Are those programs perfect, absolutely not. But one party is moving in the right direction and the other is actively trying to accelerate climate change. Gtfo with that both sides crap.

Cars probably. My car reads and sends iMessages via Bluetooth.

thats, not true at all. Safety costs a little, but they are fundamentally massively complicated, huge, specialized, EXPENSIVE things to build. They require 100s of staff to run at all times. The insurance is so expensive only nation states can back them. The economics are flawed because on modern grids with cheap renewables, they will never pay back the ridiculous up front capex. Relaxing regulations changes very little about this situation.

China and Koreas are massively state subsidized (koreas 51%, chinas 100%). Which obscures the real cost, and these state enterprises dont have to pay insurance or decommissioning. Which is the only way you can make them work today - massive state subsidies.

if your argument is "well without regulations someone could build a reactor that somehow avoids all these economic constraints" . Maybe, but today thats a fantasy.

i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely.

I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, seem like there's movement. Maybe even build something! but ultimately be a meaningless footnote in the energy transition. Just another grift for the most corrupt admin in US history.

The latest figures from ember etc are not only “sun shining”, they’re talking about 24hr firmed solar-storage costs, and they’re still mostly cheaper than fossil in most geos. It is true that we will have to pay for having gas fill the gaps - how much exactly is a very complicated function of market economics and real time power auctions. Depends on so many variables, how big is the shortfall, how long, what competition does the gas have locally and extra-geographically, many other things. For connected countries in Europe you are never going to get to a situation where you need an 80% sized backup to your production, there will always be varied other sources. And perhaps you just choose to load shed in truly black swan scenarios, rather than paying for enough backup for every possible rare scenario. Life does go on.

Though I confess predicting it is beyond me and I’m not sure how you would model it to achieve conclusions generally applicable to every country / market .

I mean, sounds kinda cool. But that 2023 idea is very clearly not going to happen in the current US political environment.

We’re in an era of brutal capitalism, and nothing else matters but price. Not even emissions sadly. Green compacts like this have no chance, and neither do nukes. Unless they pay the right bribes for some subsidies.

which is great, but as i understand it will still lead to an overall decline in share of nuclear power. The scale of their power production is unfathomable

Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing any nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear.

base load demand does not mean it has to be met with a constant matched source, and in fact that no longer works economically.

it is not at all a perfect match for nuclear. Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing the nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear.

Thats what OP means by baseload generation being irrelevant.

boy am i tired of hearing that Dunkelflaute word as if its some kind of gotcha. Even ignoring the fact that you can continue to source power from other geographies during a localized phenomenon..... Just burn gas in peaker plants for the few days a year that this happens. That small amount of emissions wont matter for the next 50 years of decarbonization, after which we'll likely have plenty of other options.

The absolutism in all these arguments is so tiring, as if its not 100% perfect solution for 100% of every imaginable scenario than its no good. 95% reduction over a year would be astounding, we would have won the climate battle.

You think the guidance was written as a good faith interpretation of the law? Cmon.

Most developing nations are below too now!

You know the answer to this. It’s only going to be anti immigrant dog whistles

Yeah it’s usually just 3-6ft on the edges of the roof. But this whole roof is tiny. Covering a 12x12 roof would be much less than one edge run on a big house . Also they only turn on when there’s actual snow falling so doesn’t use as much power as you might think

also idk, tons of people up here have regular sheds for various purposes and they seem to survive just fine

well it just has to stop significant buildup over multiple days right? IDK, seems pretty effective here in tahoe where ive seen it applied on parts of peoples houses

What if you just put heat tape on the roof? These sheds have small roofs, shouldn’t be prohibitive

But what’s “within reason”? Right now I have an unlimited list of ambitions of things to do with my kids. Traveling, sports, skiing, mountain biking, surfing, camping, building, electronics, etc etc… there are not enough hours in a year to do just those with zero paid work. Is that ridiculous, assuming I can afford to do so?

> how many have a spouse working a demanding full time job as well? I realized for me it was zero.

Zero for me too, but boy are people quiet about it. Almost taboo to let on that that is the arrangement

As a father of nine you have to acknowledge your perspective is an extreme outlier. Not criticizing, just, not a generalizable take.