Interesting. You can see the building from the beach and I always wondered what's inside. And while it's the only (decommissioned) nuclear power plant on Long Island, it's not the only nuclear reactor. There was also the High Flux Beam Reactor at BNL that was decommissioned in the 90s:
The overriding impression I get is that the whole facility is complicated. There are lots of processes in place, and lots of very trained people required to keep it all running. The size and complexity of the control rooms for example, but also the inevitable maintenance and inspection of all the piping etc. Even the details of the cleanup (checking each store foot, grinding surfaces etc.)
I've recently been on a train in Europe and I saw solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. And what's striking by comparison is the lack of people or extraneous construction. They're just solar panels, or wind turbines. They're easy to install, easy (read cheap) to maintain, and are mostly just left alone to do their thing.
If I had a $100b to invest then solar, wind, even battery, is much more attractive than the time, complexity, uncertainty, running cost etc of nuclear. Not to even start on cleanup issues.
I get the base-load issue. But even there current storage is more attractive. And investing in future storage technology seems like a better return.
The argument against nuclear (fission, and even more so fusion) is purely financial. We can nimby and worry about the radiation but ultimately nuclear doesn't happen because financially its a dead end.
Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive. Nuclear plants are very expensive to turn off and on. Nuclear plants leave you no choice but to leave them running 24x7, even when power that is an order of magnitude cheaper is available most of the time. Proponents call this base load. But technically it's just very expensive power that you can't turn off when it's completely redundant.
Flexible load is where the action is these days because renewables sometimes push energy prices into the negative whenever there's too much of it. Having to expend fuel during such times is a negative thing.
The big benefit gas plants have over coal and nuclear plants is that you can turn them off and on quicker. So you don't have to run them 24x7. Newer coal plants are similarly cheaper to use for backup power generation. A common mistake with assumptions about Chinese coal plants is that yes they build lots of them. And no, they mostly aren't running a lot. Their coal use actually is starting to decline. The new plants are more flexible and they use them to replace the older ones.
Renewables are plenty and cheaper most of the time. Batteries can deal with short term fluctuations and help time shift renewable power to cover peak loads in the morning and evenings.
And if you can bring online some gas/coal power when it's actually needed, there is no need for base load.
In practice this is still quite often but not most of the time and gradually declining. With dirt cheap renewables + batteries coming online by the hundreds of gw per year, the ability to turn the rest off is the most important feature with backup power generation.
Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.
Civilian nuclear plants can be easily regulated between 50% - 100% of maximal output, with power gradients of up to 2% / min. (Submarine nuclear reactors are designed for even faster gradients). In France, because nuclear power plants are the dominating source of electricity, nuclear power plants have to ramp up and down the output on daily basis.
When possible you want to run nuclear power plant at 100%, because there are almost no savings in operating costs (because nuclear fuel is so cheap) in comparison to a nuclear power plant running at 50%.
The current Chinese electricity strategy is to minimize the costs of electricity, get as much electricity from hydro, wind, solar as cheaply possible and fill the rest with cheap coal power. China currently doesn't use batteries for renewables backup in any significant amount (in comparison the size of the Chinese electricity grid).
China currently doesn't have access to cheap natural gas, in contrast to US. The amount of electricity produced from natural gas is very small in China.
Nuclear power in China is still very small, in comparison with coal power.
Will China build more and more renewables? Yes, but only if the costs of the whole electricity mix will stay low. They will not overbuild renewables. They will not build very large amounts of battery storage, if coal power will be cheaper.
> Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.
Combining nuclear with some secondary application that can run only at energy surplus times, such as desalination or pumped hydro, might help with the economics.
Desalination and pumping desalinated seawater through long distances might actually be a nice idea to reduce desertification or to increase agricultural output.
this gets repeated over and over again but its false:
> Nuclear power plants are routinely used in load following mode on a large scale in France, although "it is generally accepted that this is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear stations".[42] Unit A at the now decommissioned German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant was designed to modulate its output 15% per minute between 40% and 100% of its nominal power.
"Base load is one of those terms that nuclear power proponents love because it turns a negative in a positive."
I love how anti-nuclear types argue against such a basic concept as base load just because it helps THEIR argument. Base load is simply the lowest wattage the grid needs in a time period and does vary a lot but NEVER goes to zero. Wind and solar are a very poor fit for this due to their variability. Batteries can help but are expensive and wind and solar variability is offset using gas turbines.
Data centers always want to run 24/7 and significantly increase base load, which is why the big hyperscalers are all making deals for nuclear power. A nuclear reactor generating power for a data center that needs its entire output 100% of the time is an ideal scenario.
If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants.
Nuclear industry is running with very high quality standards, this requires very good training, good maintenance. In this aspects, nuclear industry is similar to aircraft industry.
Solar panels are cheap to install, wind turbines are not so cheap to install.
Solar panels are cheap to maintain. Maintenance of offshore wind turbines is very expensive, therefor offshore wind turbines are more expensive, build with higher quality, than onshore wind turbines - so they require less frequent maintenance.
I assume you are from US. The big difference between US and Europe energy landscape is the cost of natural gas, Europe pays 4-5x higher prices for natural gas then US. When solar power don't supply electricity (at night or under cloud cover) and wind has slow speeds (can happen for multiple weeks) some countries from Europe can use hydro-power (Norway, Austria, Switzerland), some countries can burn coal (Poland, Germany), but most European countries have to burn very expensive gas.
The biggest source of electricity in Europe in the year 2025 was natural gas.
>If you think nuclear facilities are complicate I would suggest to look into facilities used to manufacture polycrystalline silicon for solar panels, or facilities for manufacturing gas turbines used in gas power plants.
That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also need fancy turbine blades.
Not that I'm against nuclear, I think we're completely mad to be still burning (burning! so primitive!) ancient plants, coming up on a century after Magic Energy Rocks were discovered. "Cost" is a fickle metric when so many costs are externalized in both space and time - nobody cares if the effects of pollution are felt years down the line, thousands of miles away.
But it's funny that governments throw wildly generous subsidies and special legal treatment at domestic food production, correctly perceiving cheap reliable food as upstream of a functioning society, yet fail to similarly "overinvest" in energy sources for machines as well as humans. I hazard that most of the European countries that depended heavily on Russian gas would not have been so blase if their population had been subsisting off Russian food imports.
We should be building out tremendous energy capacity using every conceivable technology available. Any country that does this is virtually guaranteed wealth, for energy is fungible with almost everything else. The equation is so obvious that failure to do so implies regulatory capture by entrenched energy interests. "Too cheap to meter" belongs in the same rhetorical bucket as "Perfect sound forever" - a promise that was retracted as soon as it became clear that scarcity was more profitable than abundance.
I thought you talked about the impression of solar energy being simple and nuclear energy being, in comparison with solar, complicated.
Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs. The capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are about the same as the total operational costs of the nuclear power plant over it's entire lifetime (60 - 80 year).
The turbine blades for a water cooled nuclear power plant are similar technology to turbine blades in coal power plant. (Newest coal power plant turbines are even more demanding, because the newest coal power plant utilize ultra-supercritical steam cycles, with temperatures and pressures much higher than conventional nuclear power plants). Turbine blades for turbines in gas power plants, operating at even higher temperatures than coal power plants, are examples of the most advanced metallurgy.
Because most of the worlds population lives with lot less energy than developed countries, we can assume that total energy demand will increase a lot in future.
"Cost" is only one metric, but many other many externalized costs connected to energy generation are hard to quantify and compare. Like impacts of nickel mining in Indonesia, lithium extraction in Chile, rare earth refining in China.
"In 2024, nickel mining and processing was one of the main causes of deforestation in Indonesia"
>> Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs
I'm not sure I agree.
Firstly, I can get solar panels without building a solar panel factory. Hence the capital cost of a solar farm is cheap. I can't buy a nuclear power plant off the shelf.
Equally on the running cost, solar costs pretty much nothing to run. I'd argue that the costs to run a nuclear plant are substantial. Plus I need highly skilled people on-site permanently. With solar I need skilled people to install (skills easily taught) but I don't need permanent engineers on site.
...or the evacuation of highly populated Long Island.
Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC.
To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance.
Meanwhile, even the country's leading experts have no politically viable strategy for disposing of the waste, including the risk of derailments, terrorism, etc.
This isn't the world I want, but it's reality. IRL, people would rather die slowly from CO2 than live with the fear of 3MI/Chernobyl/Fukushima regardless of how rare they are (and they're not).
I'm optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues, but I can understand why voters go full NIMBY.
While I think you are accurately describing how people do/would react, the "big deal" you describe killed, injured, or caused adverse health effects for exactly zero people. It is possible that these are inevitable outcomes of human psychology, but a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power, even after all of the events you describe. A Chernobyl level accident every single year would have killed fewer people (by a few OOM) than particulate emissions from coal, and that's completely ignoring any climate effects.
Our societies risk tolerance with nuclear is literally orders of magnitude disconnected from how we treat risk from any other source, and as a result we are all poorer, less healthy, and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
>a more rational world would have gone full steam ahead on nuclear power
Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable.
> and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations.
>and as a result we are all poorer
How? Nuclear is safe, but it is expensive. And it almost naturally lead to monopolies and oligopolies due to their size and complexity, allowing owners to have pricing power. In fact, the economics of building a nuclear plant don't work unless a state subsidizes (i.e. extra costs you won't find in the utility bill, but hidding in your taxes, ask the french) its build and insurance costs.
> Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable.
I'd imagine a lot of that would be solved if we just kept building them.
Also, solar have zero ability to modulate upwards and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.
Nuclear plants are what about 5% per minute ? So you only need 30 minutes worth of capacity vs hours and hours for anything green
> Also, solar have zero ability to modulate upwards
The solution is to overprovision and either disconnect or cover the surplus panels.
> and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.
Power banks are useful in themselves (smoothing over demand peaks that would be hard to follow with any technology), and you can fill in with wind as well, as having multiple sources make times of reduced capacity less likely.
Is that because the building materials, engineering, and labor are super expensive or because of environmentalists throwing up legal and monetary roadblocks for decades? ("OK, if you can do a decade-long study on the impact of this plant AND make sure no Native American tribes declare a 100-mile area around your proposed site sacred AND you can design it in such a way that it emits less background radiation than a vacuum cleaner, maybe we can advance your proposal to the review stage, which will last a couple years. Too expensive, huh? Shame!")
> it creates dangerous residues
We have a perfectly good storage site (Yucca Mountain), but of course political and environmental opposition is what keeps it closed.
> France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations.
I don't see how it reasonably follows that leaning heavily on nuclear power would cause France to decide that fossil fuels are somehow a better choice than renewables for that purpose. Pure speculation based on the common anti-nuclear belief that using nuclear power will retard the usage of renewables for some reason.
You're kind of highlighting what's stalled nuclear energy for decades: demanding absolute, total perfection in the face of reality, which is that nuclear is and has been the _best_ overall option for baseload power generation.
Three Mile Island was expensive, but nobody was injured. TMI had a big, strong containment vessel. Although they had a meltdown, the containment did its job and held.
Fukushima had too small a containment vessel. It was only slightly larger than the reactor pressure vessel, and it failed to contain the pressures of the meltdown.
Chernobyl had no containment at all.
Instead of all these "modular reactor" excuses for weaker containment vessels, such as NuScale, what's needed is more work on making very large pressure vessels cheaply. There's been progress in robotic welding of thick sections.
> optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues
The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible.
That's the problem.
LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?
Funny coincidence, I just read this morning about how the risk of cancer from radiation is massively exaggerated[1]. I'm not convinced that the overall health risk from nuclear power is worse than the health risk from coal plants.
This reactor was decommissioned in 1994. Since we're discussing the safety of 30-year-old reactors, it seems to me to be appropriate to compare to 30-year-old alternatives.
> even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology,
Fukushima was a terrible design, where there is no passive failsafe - the reactor is still reacting after scram, and still getting hotter, but the heat no longer powers the cooling systems, which rely on external power that must be operating.
It's not Chernobyl bad, but, if you shouldn't need anything external to the reactor to keep it safe if disconnected from everything outside.
The problem is the technology being dependent on a highly sophisticated industrial environment, which is not allowed to go through phases of economic decline and knowledge loss. Nobody has distrust into the engineering, everyone distrusts the social component. Humans do not make for great material when it comes to forming sturdy, reliable organizations.
In Fukushima, there were no radiation deaths, and the long term effects of radiation on the population will be undetectable. The deaths that did occur were due to the unnecessary evacuations.
The forced evacuation of 154,000 people ″was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels″, but was ordered because ″the government basically panicked″
Personal note: the Fukushima accident turned me from a nuclear skeptic to a nuclear supporter. This happened quite a bit. At least for people who actually paid attention.
And remember that this was all due to a historically unprecedented earthquake and Tsunami that killed 18000 people and caused half a trillion dollars in damage (in 2025 dollars).
During that earthquake, more people died due to breaking dams than of radiation in that natural disaster. Are we dismantling our dams?
There is no 100% safe technology. Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation we have, although solar and wind are so close that the differences don't really matter.
According to this NASA study, nuclear power saved 1,8 million lives up to 2011, with many millions more lives saved in the future.
On the flip-side, the most consequential negative health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima came from turning off nuclear power plants and not building more.
If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035.
We estimate that the decline in NPP caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately
141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally
And we absolutly know how to deal with the waste, and it's not particularly difficult. In fact, we have multiple ways of disposing of the small amounts of waste. NPPs are very secure against terrorism.
The waste thing is weird. We're able to dispose of other highly toxic substances. One dangerous thing frequently mentioned about nuclear waste is that it remains dangerous for thousands of years. But many other dangerous substances remain dangerous forever. It seems like having a concrete span of time makes it scarier even though it's objectively better.
the thing that makes nuclear waste scary (the radiation) is also something extremely helpful for public health. You can wave a cheap, widely available scanner over your milk and immediately know if it is contaminated with radioactive iodine. Anyone can do it in their own home if they are concerned. It takes extremely expensive lab equipment to detect PFAS in the same milk, even at concentrations associated with major health impact. How do you know if that dust is contaminated with arsenic trioxide? It definitely isn't as easy as if it has radioactive cobalt.
I can be confident none of the food I ate today had nuclear waste in meaningful quantities, and it is verifiable non-destructively. If something is detected, it will have a characteristic signature that should be traceable within days back to the exact time and place where it was released. Can anyone say the same thing about the thousands of other industrial waste products with similar dose-dependent impacts on human health?
"We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances."
With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements?
Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room.
Also ... the amount of radioactiv waste matters, it is not just a few barrels we have to handle. Have you at least done a search on how much radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a big number and for some reasons even the most pro nuclear people don't want it buried in their backyard.
There's a single mine (Giant Mine) in Canada that is contaminated with 200k+ tons of arsenic trioxide - which will literally remain poisonous forever since the poison is a stable element not an organic compound. The current plan is to try to keep it frozen because the dust is odorless, tasteless, water soluble, and located just outside of Yellowknife. That's the weight of more than half the amount of nuclear waste ever produced on the planet, in one relatively unremarkable industrial site.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. We could probably store all the nuclear waste in the world in a geologic repository on the canadian shield somewhere for the cost of actually cleaning up that one old gold mine to make it non toxic.
> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is.
That is only true of fission-ready amounts - that is, near-fuel-level radioactive levels that are "hot" with decay particles. Unprompted radioactive decay is the most stable process known to us currently; we base all our best clocks on it.
99.9% of nuclear waste is essentially either "slightly radioactive", or "suspected to be slightly radioactive" - and it won't change for a looong time.
No, I haven't dealt with radioactive substances beyond what's found in ordinary households. But I'm not a complete ignoramus as you imply. Have you at least done a search on how much non-radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a much, much, much bigger number. I think this is another case where the relatively small number on the nuclear side makes it scarier because it's something you can actually conceive of.
No, I don't want it in my back yard. I'm not arguing that it's harmless. But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc.
My go-to comparison is seafood. Look up the advice on how much to eat, and it'll be, have some, but don't have too much, especially for more vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. Why? Because pollution of the seas is so prevalent that it's bad for you to eat a lot of it. And while nobody is out there saying this is wonderful and we should pollute more, the response to this is pretty weak, and people mostly shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives. At the same time, we had people freaking the fuck out because the most sensitive instruments were able to detect a tiny bit of Fukushima contamination on the US west coast.
I don't mean to completely trivialize nuclear waste, but the concern about it is deeply out of proportion compared to how other waste is viewed. And yes, at least some of that discrepancy should be made up by being more concerned about other waste.
But I live in a former soviet state area with lots of chemical and radioactive waste (uran mining). Also there once was a radioactive cloud over my childhood playground. And some first and second hand stories from miners, doctors, .. and I engage with the topic since many years.
So yes, I was of the impression that you said radioactive waste is no big deal and I know that is not true.
" But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc."
But here let's agree to disagree. The point is anyway, do we want to produce more of it, knowing how faulty and corrupt humans can be?
Less toxic stuff is always good. My point is just that the conversation around nuclear waste is weird and it seems like it's due to flaws in human perception, where "tens of thousands of years" feels worse than "forever," and "a 70ft cube" feels bigger than "makes an entire category of food unsafe to eat in large quantities." It's hard to have a good conversation about what kind of energy is best with this backwards thinking being so prevalent.
Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106.
There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019.
Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's that continued until the plant was shut down.
Furthermore, the site is costing us $2BN a year and will until roughly 2040. $2BN would be enough to install around 2GW of solar good for roughly 3–6 TWh/year. 450,000–500,000 "homes" worth of additional capacity.
One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab.
> Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release
https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern"
Maybe this is a dumb question but couldn't we ship the waste to another planet (of course once we have rockets capable of doing so but that's not far imo).
Potentially, but it is much, much safer to dispose of it here.
What's even better is to recycle it, because 95% of the original energy is still in the "waste". And when you do use all of it, the remainder remains radioactive for a much shorter period of time.
We could fly it into the sun, the problem is that until we have a space elevator the only way we have of getting it out of the atmosphere is via rockets and a rocket explosion with a nuclear waste payload would be very bad.
Sure but since we're talking about pie in the sky stuff requiring tech we don't yet have to begin with, putting it into the sun is a better permanent solution.
I don't think Elon is ever going to colonize Mars, but other people may someday.
It's the most expensive form of power generation. Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest and continue to get cheaper as volume goes up and all the tech around them matures. More and more storage methods are being developed and put into use.
Utilities and grid operators have lined up behind solar, wind, BSS, and HVDC transmission. That's what they are funding, installing, and buying power from. This has been a trend for a number of years now, around the world. That isn't some conspiracy or coincidence.
The only place this is still considered a debated topic, or nuclear is considered preferential, is social media and forums like HN.
An already built nuclear plant is cheaper than building new solar and wind, which is what this article is about. It had already started operational tests at 5% capacity when it was shut down.
And nuclear power doesn't inherently emit CO2 (or equivalents), which is what is meant by zero-carbon in this context.
The low end of costs for new build solar and wind in the US is nearly identical to the average running costs of fully deprecated nuclear plants in the US according to Lazard.
Solar low end $38, Wind low end $37, Nuclear running cost average $34, Nuclear new build low end $141
Normally I'd say that renewables cost is likely to continue to fall over time, but with Trump in charge and putting his thumb on the scale that future is a little cloudy. These are all long term investments and risk causes higher prices.
Either way if a nation is looking to get out of nuclear today then it's not a clear cut case to say that they'd lose money by doing so.
Lazard makes recommendations for investors in different kinds of energy generation.
But the costs for electricity customers depend on the price of the whole electric mix, for US it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap natural gas, for China it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap coal, for EU it's a mix of cheap renewables and very expensive natural gas.
I agree, in US new nuclear power build is not competitive with the combination of cheap renewables (especially cheap solar) and cheap natural gas. The Nuclear Renaissance talked in US since about about 2001, was made insignificant in US by the franking gas revolution, starting in about 2008.
"According to the Department of Energy (DOE), by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and, of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the natural gas production in the United States."
The thing is that educated people like HN users see very simple thing: 1 kW nuclear can be safely replaced with 20 kW well distributed renewables. While solar is dirt cheap wind isn’t. Especially offshore wind. And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear.
> And the math clearly shows advantages of nuclear.
If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ...
Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables?
Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance?
There's a bit of a difference between countries with {nuclear weapons, nuclear power reactors, and nuclear enrichment and breeding programs} and countries without any of that.
The CSIRO costings include the estimated ten year lead time to build expertise and start education in order to have a sound foundation for a nuclear power industry coupled with the long construction lead times anticipated for first build with no priors.
It's of interest that they also "cost" / anticipate a future of SMRs (small modular reactors from third parties) and conclude that'll take a while and will come with some costs.
All in parallel with Australia also kick starting support for nuclear powered submarines in partnership with both the US and the UK in a random never the same twice plan of a vague but alluring (to some) nature.
Having renewables distributed however is the big challenge. We've gone from a world where you have a small amount of large generators in static places to having many generators everywhere. If you don't have the capacity to transfer that energy to where it's being used it doesn't matter how cheap it is.
Offshore wind is cheaper than coal in China now. Which also makes it much cheaper than nuclear in China.
Onshore wind is only very slightly more expensive than solar in China too, most projects overlapping in cost ranges, both roughly half the cost of coal.
This is reflected in their deployment numbers, which also feeds back into cost reductions.
If you want to see the inside of another nuclear plant that New York decided to turn off, Radioactive Drew has a good tour of Indian Point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJSH1_GH1HQ
I grew up there. I was maybe 14 so I have some memory of how worked up the community was. I remember people talking about building a bridge to CT since there would be no other way to get people off the island. It was such a fierce time then, nothing compared to nowadays about seemingly anything though.
They should still build that bridge; it's funny to drive on 135 and just see the highway come to an end, but I'm not sure it would have survived even with the Long Island Sound link.
This video about Shoreham was my entry into the Proper People's channel. If you like this kind of abandoned structure exploration, I recommend checking out their other videos.
Not mentioned, but later on a gas turbine was built on site with some of the existing transmission infrastructure, and there’s also the Cross Sound Cable there, coming over from New Haven and connecting NYISO and ISO-NE.
Possibly not mentioned because some of the adjacent site is still very much used due to those facilities, making it even easier to be caught trespassing.
As an aside, and as a life-long Long-Islander, it has long been considered an open-secret (whether it's true or not) by many that Cold Spring Harbor Lab has a small nuclear reactor somewhere on site.
I would assume that it's not just the fuel, but also the construction materials etc. It's in the article that they had to grind down the surfaces of the spent fuel pool, the residue from that would probably weigh a lot on its own!
https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/
https://www.bnl.gov/hfbr/hfbr-complex.php
I've recently been on a train in Europe and I saw solar panels and wind turbines everywhere. And what's striking by comparison is the lack of people or extraneous construction. They're just solar panels, or wind turbines. They're easy to install, easy (read cheap) to maintain, and are mostly just left alone to do their thing.
If I had a $100b to invest then solar, wind, even battery, is much more attractive than the time, complexity, uncertainty, running cost etc of nuclear. Not to even start on cleanup issues.
I get the base-load issue. But even there current storage is more attractive. And investing in future storage technology seems like a better return.
The argument against nuclear (fission, and even more so fusion) is purely financial. We can nimby and worry about the radiation but ultimately nuclear doesn't happen because financially its a dead end.
Flexible load is where the action is these days because renewables sometimes push energy prices into the negative whenever there's too much of it. Having to expend fuel during such times is a negative thing.
The big benefit gas plants have over coal and nuclear plants is that you can turn them off and on quicker. So you don't have to run them 24x7. Newer coal plants are similarly cheaper to use for backup power generation. A common mistake with assumptions about Chinese coal plants is that yes they build lots of them. And no, they mostly aren't running a lot. Their coal use actually is starting to decline. The new plants are more flexible and they use them to replace the older ones.
Renewables are plenty and cheaper most of the time. Batteries can deal with short term fluctuations and help time shift renewable power to cover peak loads in the morning and evenings.
And if you can bring online some gas/coal power when it's actually needed, there is no need for base load.
In practice this is still quite often but not most of the time and gradually declining. With dirt cheap renewables + batteries coming online by the hundreds of gw per year, the ability to turn the rest off is the most important feature with backup power generation.
Nuclear plants remain stupidly expensive and lack this feature.
https://snetp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SNETP-Factsheet-...
When possible you want to run nuclear power plant at 100%, because there are almost no savings in operating costs (because nuclear fuel is so cheap) in comparison to a nuclear power plant running at 50%.
The current Chinese electricity strategy is to minimize the costs of electricity, get as much electricity from hydro, wind, solar as cheaply possible and fill the rest with cheap coal power. China currently doesn't use batteries for renewables backup in any significant amount (in comparison the size of the Chinese electricity grid).
China currently doesn't have access to cheap natural gas, in contrast to US. The amount of electricity produced from natural gas is very small in China.
https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china
Nuclear power in China is still very small, in comparison with coal power.
Will China build more and more renewables? Yes, but only if the costs of the whole electricity mix will stay low. They will not overbuild renewables. They will not build very large amounts of battery storage, if coal power will be cheaper.
Combining nuclear with some secondary application that can run only at energy surplus times, such as desalination or pumped hydro, might help with the economics.
Desalination and pumping desalinated seawater through long distances might actually be a nice idea to reduce desertification or to increase agricultural output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-350_reactor
The question is always: costs. In the Middle East and North Africa dominating source of power for desalination is natural gas.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/energy-consum...
> Nuclear power plants are routinely used in load following mode on a large scale in France, although "it is generally accepted that this is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear stations".[42] Unit A at the now decommissioned German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant was designed to modulate its output 15% per minute between 40% and 100% of its nominal power.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#Flexibilit...
I love how anti-nuclear types argue against such a basic concept as base load just because it helps THEIR argument. Base load is simply the lowest wattage the grid needs in a time period and does vary a lot but NEVER goes to zero. Wind and solar are a very poor fit for this due to their variability. Batteries can help but are expensive and wind and solar variability is offset using gas turbines.
Data centers always want to run 24/7 and significantly increase base load, which is why the big hyperscalers are all making deals for nuclear power. A nuclear reactor generating power for a data center that needs its entire output 100% of the time is an ideal scenario.
Nuclear industry is running with very high quality standards, this requires very good training, good maintenance. In this aspects, nuclear industry is similar to aircraft industry.
Solar panels are cheap to install, wind turbines are not so cheap to install.
Solar panels are cheap to maintain. Maintenance of offshore wind turbines is very expensive, therefor offshore wind turbines are more expensive, build with higher quality, than onshore wind turbines - so they require less frequent maintenance.
I assume you are from US. The big difference between US and Europe energy landscape is the cost of natural gas, Europe pays 4-5x higher prices for natural gas then US. When solar power don't supply electricity (at night or under cloud cover) and wind has slow speeds (can happen for multiple weeks) some countries from Europe can use hydro-power (Norway, Austria, Switzerland), some countries can burn coal (Poland, Germany), but most European countries have to burn very expensive gas.
The biggest source of electricity in Europe in the year 2025 was natural gas.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...
That's an unfair comparison. We are talking about operational costs, not capital costs. A fair comparison would include nuclear's capital costs, which don't do it any favors - nuclear plants also need fancy turbine blades.
Not that I'm against nuclear, I think we're completely mad to be still burning (burning! so primitive!) ancient plants, coming up on a century after Magic Energy Rocks were discovered. "Cost" is a fickle metric when so many costs are externalized in both space and time - nobody cares if the effects of pollution are felt years down the line, thousands of miles away.
But it's funny that governments throw wildly generous subsidies and special legal treatment at domestic food production, correctly perceiving cheap reliable food as upstream of a functioning society, yet fail to similarly "overinvest" in energy sources for machines as well as humans. I hazard that most of the European countries that depended heavily on Russian gas would not have been so blase if their population had been subsisting off Russian food imports.
We should be building out tremendous energy capacity using every conceivable technology available. Any country that does this is virtually guaranteed wealth, for energy is fungible with almost everything else. The equation is so obvious that failure to do so implies regulatory capture by entrenched energy interests. "Too cheap to meter" belongs in the same rhetorical bucket as "Perfect sound forever" - a promise that was retracted as soon as it became clear that scarcity was more profitable than abundance.
Solar power, wind power, hydro power, nuclear power are all heavy on capital costs and light on operational costs. The capital costs to build a nuclear power plant are about the same as the total operational costs of the nuclear power plant over it's entire lifetime (60 - 80 year).
The turbine blades for a water cooled nuclear power plant are similar technology to turbine blades in coal power plant. (Newest coal power plant turbines are even more demanding, because the newest coal power plant utilize ultra-supercritical steam cycles, with temperatures and pressures much higher than conventional nuclear power plants). Turbine blades for turbines in gas power plants, operating at even higher temperatures than coal power plants, are examples of the most advanced metallurgy.
https://www.gem.wiki/Coal_power_technologies
We are burning ancient organism, with every year increasing amounts.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
Because most of the worlds population lives with lot less energy than developed countries, we can assume that total energy demand will increase a lot in future.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked
"Cost" is only one metric, but many other many externalized costs connected to energy generation are hard to quantify and compare. Like impacts of nickel mining in Indonesia, lithium extraction in Chile, rare earth refining in China.
"In 2024, nickel mining and processing was one of the main causes of deforestation in Indonesia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_mining_in_Indonesia
https://ttfpower.com/chiles-lithium-mine-powering-the-future...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth...
I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I can get solar panels without building a solar panel factory. Hence the capital cost of a solar farm is cheap. I can't buy a nuclear power plant off the shelf.
Equally on the running cost, solar costs pretty much nothing to run. I'd argue that the costs to run a nuclear plant are substantial. Plus I need highly skilled people on-site permanently. With solar I need skilled people to install (skills easily taught) but I don't need permanent engineers on site.
How much do you need get from electric grid, from non-solar power plants?
Try to scale this to a whole country.
China will build it for you, and has. Not OTS, but still something you write a check and a spec for, and you get it made.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industr...
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/solar-companies-linked-to-...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/28/nyregion/the-end-of-lilco...
Three Mile Island was a * big * deal - if that had happened on Long Island, it would've been unimaginable disaster and permanent stain on NYC.
To many people, "three strikes you're out" - 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima was the final straw, reasoning that even the Japanese can't safely manage this technology, so "Homer Simpson" stands no chance.
Meanwhile, even the country's leading experts have no politically viable strategy for disposing of the waste, including the risk of derailments, terrorism, etc.
This isn't the world I want, but it's reality. IRL, people would rather die slowly from CO2 than live with the fear of 3MI/Chernobyl/Fukushima regardless of how rare they are (and they're not).
I'm optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues, but I can understand why voters go full NIMBY.
Our societies risk tolerance with nuclear is literally orders of magnitude disconnected from how we treat risk from any other source, and as a result we are all poorer, less healthy, and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
Nuclear is not perfect, it has some drawbacks that totally justify not going "full steam ahead". Even if it is the cleanest energy possible and 100% safe guaranteed, it is also very concentrated (at least for now) that makes a plant shutting down for repairment/manteinance a problem, it is expensive to build, it takes forever to increase capacity, it creates dangerous residues, it is not very modulable.
> and have injured the environment to a dramatically greater degree relative to a pro-nuclear alternative timeline.
France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations.
>and as a result we are all poorer
How? Nuclear is safe, but it is expensive. And it almost naturally lead to monopolies and oligopolies due to their size and complexity, allowing owners to have pricing power. In fact, the economics of building a nuclear plant don't work unless a state subsidizes (i.e. extra costs you won't find in the utility bill, but hidding in your taxes, ask the french) its build and insurance costs.
I'd imagine a lot of that would be solved if we just kept building them.
Also, solar have zero ability to modulate upwards and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.
Nuclear plants are what about 5% per minute ? So you only need 30 minutes worth of capacity vs hours and hours for anything green
The solution is to overprovision and either disconnect or cover the surplus panels.
> and need massive energy banks to cover weather/non solar peak.
Power banks are useful in themselves (smoothing over demand peaks that would be hard to follow with any technology), and you can fill in with wind as well, as having multiple sources make times of reduced capacity less likely.
Is that because the building materials, engineering, and labor are super expensive or because of environmentalists throwing up legal and monetary roadblocks for decades? ("OK, if you can do a decade-long study on the impact of this plant AND make sure no Native American tribes declare a 100-mile area around your proposed site sacred AND you can design it in such a way that it emits less background radiation than a vacuum cleaner, maybe we can advance your proposal to the review stage, which will last a couple years. Too expensive, huh? Shame!")
> it creates dangerous residues
We have a perfectly good storage site (Yucca Mountain), but of course political and environmental opposition is what keeps it closed.
> France is having a problem to install green energy, because their nuclear capacity is so big. The alternative pro-nuclear timeline might be using fossils as the modulable part forever by blocking solar and wind installations.
I don't see how it reasonably follows that leaning heavily on nuclear power would cause France to decide that fossil fuels are somehow a better choice than renewables for that purpose. Pure speculation based on the common anti-nuclear belief that using nuclear power will retard the usage of renewables for some reason.
You're kind of highlighting what's stalled nuclear energy for decades: demanding absolute, total perfection in the face of reality, which is that nuclear is and has been the _best_ overall option for baseload power generation.
Fukushima had too small a containment vessel. It was only slightly larger than the reactor pressure vessel, and it failed to contain the pressures of the meltdown.
Chernobyl had no containment at all.
Instead of all these "modular reactor" excuses for weaker containment vessels, such as NuScale, what's needed is more work on making very large pressure vessels cheaply. There's been progress in robotic welding of thick sections.
The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible.
That's the problem.
LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?
[1]https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-to-lie-about-radiation/
Whereas wind and solar are around twice that, and skyrocketing?
Although the US Government is funding 2 new coal power plants.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-announces-850m-moderniz...
Fukushima was a terrible design, where there is no passive failsafe - the reactor is still reacting after scram, and still getting hotter, but the heat no longer powers the cooling systems, which rely on external power that must be operating.
It's not Chernobyl bad, but, if you shouldn't need anything external to the reactor to keep it safe if disconnected from everything outside.
In Fukushima, there were no radiation deaths, and the long term effects of radiation on the population will be undetectable. The deaths that did occur were due to the unnecessary evacuations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095758201...
So due to Radiophobia, not radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
The forced evacuation of 154,000 people ″was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels″, but was ordered because ″the government basically panicked″
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-is...
Personal note: the Fukushima accident turned me from a nuclear skeptic to a nuclear supporter. This happened quite a bit. At least for people who actually paid attention.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...
And remember that this was all due to a historically unprecedented earthquake and Tsunami that killed 18000 people and caused half a trillion dollars in damage (in 2025 dollars).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu...
During that earthquake, more people died due to breaking dams than of radiation in that natural disaster. Are we dismantling our dams?
There is no 100% safe technology. Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation we have, although solar and wind are so close that the differences don't really matter.
According to this NASA study, nuclear power saved 1,8 million lives up to 2011, with many millions more lives saved in the future.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/kh05000e.html
On the flip-side, the most consequential negative health effects of Chernobyl and Fukushima came from turning off nuclear power plants and not building more.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035.
https://www.sciencespo.fr/department-economics/sites/science...
We estimate that the decline in NPP caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally
And we absolutly know how to deal with the waste, and it's not particularly difficult. In fact, we have multiple ways of disposing of the small amounts of waste. NPPs are very secure against terrorism.
I can be confident none of the food I ate today had nuclear waste in meaningful quantities, and it is verifiable non-destructively. If something is detected, it will have a characteristic signature that should be traceable within days back to the exact time and place where it was released. Can anyone say the same thing about the thousands of other industrial waste products with similar dose-dependent impacts on human health?
"We're able to dispose of other highly toxic subst.ances."
With this statement I don't think so, so maybe educate yourself about a topic before making objective statements?
Chemical toxic substances can be processed into non toxic. They do not radiate through the walls, they do not make other materials also toxic by having it in the same room.
Also ... the amount of radioactiv waste matters, it is not just a few barrels we have to handle. Have you at least done a search on how much radioactive waste there is? Spoiler, it is a big number and for some reasons even the most pro nuclear people don't want it buried in their backyard.
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is. We could probably store all the nuclear waste in the world in a geologic repository on the canadian shield somewhere for the cost of actually cleaning up that one old gold mine to make it non toxic.
> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to reduce its volume, and the more "spicy" it is, inherently the less long lived it is.
That is only true of fission-ready amounts - that is, near-fuel-level radioactive levels that are "hot" with decay particles. Unprompted radioactive decay is the most stable process known to us currently; we base all our best clocks on it.
99.9% of nuclear waste is essentially either "slightly radioactive", or "suspected to be slightly radioactive" - and it won't change for a looong time.
It's very little even for the US a country that at the behest of it's fossil fuel industry bans the reuse of it's nuclear fuel.
Also if I remember well only a small share of that waste (about 3%) is long lived and veryradioactive.
No, I don't want it in my back yard. I'm not arguing that it's harmless. But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc.
My go-to comparison is seafood. Look up the advice on how much to eat, and it'll be, have some, but don't have too much, especially for more vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. Why? Because pollution of the seas is so prevalent that it's bad for you to eat a lot of it. And while nobody is out there saying this is wonderful and we should pollute more, the response to this is pretty weak, and people mostly shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives. At the same time, we had people freaking the fuck out because the most sensitive instruments were able to detect a tiny bit of Fukushima contamination on the US west coast.
I don't mean to completely trivialize nuclear waste, but the concern about it is deeply out of proportion compared to how other waste is viewed. And yes, at least some of that discrepancy should be made up by being more concerned about other waste.
But I live in a former soviet state area with lots of chemical and radioactive waste (uran mining). Also there once was a radioactive cloud over my childhood playground. And some first and second hand stories from miners, doctors, .. and I engage with the topic since many years.
So yes, I was of the impression that you said radioactive waste is no big deal and I know that is not true.
" But it's not that big of a deal, compared to mercury, arsenic, PFAS, etc., etc."
But here let's agree to disagree. The point is anyway, do we want to produce more of it, knowing how faulty and corrupt humans can be?
Or rather reduce toxic substances where we can?
Sarov in 1997
Mayak Production Association in 2017 - nobody knows what happened to this day because Russia refuses to release any info about it but it was a huge release - over 100–300 TBq of ruthenium-106.
There's the Nyonoksa explosion in 2019.
Also, we might as well count Hanaford, because of massive amounts of radioactive material released starting in the 40's that continued until the plant was shut down.
Furthermore, the site is costing us $2BN a year and will until roughly 2040. $2BN would be enough to install around 2GW of solar good for roughly 3–6 TWh/year. 450,000–500,000 "homes" worth of additional capacity.
What is the measure of major? The INES scale? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_and_Radi...
> Sarov in 1997
One person died in the criticality accident in a weapons research lab.
> Mayak Production Association in 2017 ... it was a huge release
https://inis.iaea.org/records/ndb3s-s5507 "In some regions, over 100 mBq/m³ were measured as one-day means. Although resulting exposure was far below radiological concern"
> the Nyonoksa explosion
Nuclear powered cruise missile.
> we might as well count Hanaford
https://madihilly.substack.com/p/hanford-what-a-waste
What's even better is to recycle it, because 95% of the original energy is still in the "waste". And when you do use all of it, the remainder remains radioactive for a much shorter period of time.
There isn't that much of it once it is solidified and it isn't that dangerous.
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-g...
I don't think Elon is ever going to colonize Mars, but other people may someday.
It's the most expensive form of power generation. Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest and continue to get cheaper as volume goes up and all the tech around them matures. More and more storage methods are being developed and put into use.
Utilities and grid operators have lined up behind solar, wind, BSS, and HVDC transmission. That's what they are funding, installing, and buying power from. This has been a trend for a number of years now, around the world. That isn't some conspiracy or coincidence.
The only place this is still considered a debated topic, or nuclear is considered preferential, is social media and forums like HN.
And nuclear power doesn't inherently emit CO2 (or equivalents), which is what is meant by zero-carbon in this context.
Solar low end $38, Wind low end $37, Nuclear running cost average $34, Nuclear new build low end $141
Normally I'd say that renewables cost is likely to continue to fall over time, but with Trump in charge and putting his thumb on the scale that future is a little cloudy. These are all long term investments and risk causes higher prices.
Either way if a nation is looking to get out of nuclear today then it's not a clear cut case to say that they'd lose money by doing so.
But the costs for electricity customers depend on the price of the whole electric mix, for US it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap natural gas, for China it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap coal, for EU it's a mix of cheap renewables and very expensive natural gas.
I agree, in US new nuclear power build is not competitive with the combination of cheap renewables (especially cheap solar) and cheap natural gas. The Nuclear Renaissance talked in US since about about 2001, was made insignificant in US by the franking gas revolution, starting in about 2008.
"According to the Department of Energy (DOE), by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and, of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the natural gas production in the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States
If that's the case and the advantages are so sharp and clearly defined, ...
Then why did Australia's latest CSIRO (National Science body) energy options for the nations future report* clearly state that nuclear was not an economically pragmatic choice compared to renewables?
Any chance "Nuclear V. {X}" is a qualified comparison with edge cases and nuance?
* https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-genc...
The CSIRO costings include the estimated ten year lead time to build expertise and start education in order to have a sound foundation for a nuclear power industry coupled with the long construction lead times anticipated for first build with no priors.
It's of interest that they also "cost" / anticipate a future of SMRs (small modular reactors from third parties) and conclude that'll take a while and will come with some costs.
All in parallel with Australia also kick starting support for nuclear powered submarines in partnership with both the US and the UK in a random never the same twice plan of a vague but alluring (to some) nature.
Solar and wind aren't 20% cheaper than nuclear power they're 20% of the price of nuclear power.
Onshore wind is only very slightly more expensive than solar in China too, most projects overlapping in cost ranges, both roughly half the cost of coal.
This is reflected in their deployment numbers, which also feeds back into cost reductions.
1994.
> Meanwhile solar, wind, and BSS are the cheapest [...]
1994
from the article: "Originally published February 26, 2014."
Possibly not mentioned because some of the adjacent site is still very much used due to those facilities, making it even easier to be caught trespassing.
https://i0.wp.com/nickcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IM...
https://hpmuseum.net/images/2645A-35.jpg
(while i was typing that in, somebody else answered same)
https://web.archive.org/web/20250606230458/https://hpmuseum....
As for the parts of the steel that do get irradiated, anybody interested in seeing a flame cutter going to town to Blue Oyster Cult? I think so...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8Jt8EMF5Lg
I'd love to see some videos of robotic diamond wire cutters on the biological shield concrete, but haven't found any of those.
Edit: found one! From Sweden https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5jdvc1yD8
how does that work? sounds like a lot.
Intuitive, readily interpretable at a glance, spatially oriented (instead of tucked behind layers of tabs and recursive settings).