upvote
> Want to build additional nuclear? First convince an investor to take the risk and operate on the free market, don't come begging the government for a giant guaranteed-profit handout.

Guess you just explained how one investor was convinced: the government.

Why? Because governments don't think in quarterly reports and short term profits, but also have to make strategic investments in stability. Ignoring the existence of baseload power needs is classical fallacy of "solar-pilled" westerners with the luxury of having 24/7 power from sources they are willing to ignore. I'm saying this with solar panels on top the house I'm living, and charging an electric car from them.

Solar and wind are not a panacea, and batteries won't solve all power needs, it is the same mindset as outsourcing polluting and humanely taxing industries to China or the third world and acting if we solved environmental or ethics problems, because we can now conveniently nott see them.

If we stop our industry, and civil infrastructure for the night, sure, no need for baseload, just some batteries... wish nobody wants to make a tea, make food, smelt aluminum at night...

reply
A lesson being learnt in the Middle East and Eastern Europe right now is that any form of highly centralised energy generation (or energy processing) is hugely risky during a war. It's an Achilles' heel that makes modern economies hugely vulnerable when attacked, even by a mid-power like Iran, let alone a super power.

Solar and wind have been branded as unreliable by propogandists working for billionaire fossil fuel magnates, oil sheiks, and oligarchs.

The converse is true: distributed power generation and storage is incredibly robust and can easily meet the needs of our civilization even under active attack.

If you want long term thinking, if you want robustness over short term profits, then solar + wind + batteries are you answer.

No super power can blockade the sun and wind.

No super power can blow up every rooftop panel without also nuking entire cities.

reply
> Want to build additional nuclear? First convince an investor to take the risk and operate on the free market

That's a bit cruel, because no such nuclear plant has ever been built and operated, anywhere in the world. :)

reply
> Someone could invent a magical zero-point energy warp drive and provide us with unlimited free power, and we'd still be paying for those nuclear power plants!

yes, if magic unlimited free power arrives nuclear will turn out useless

if it will not, then it provides some stability to energy grid and ensures that low polluting, resilient source of power exists

somehow I think that risk of magic unlimited free power appearing is low - and if it appears, then costs of contracted power will be now negligible

personally I prefer to pay a bit more for reduced risk of blackouts

reply
That’s for new nuclear. Existing nuclear reactors operate on the whim of the markets.

For that we have energy futures, or just bidding negative, if you don’t want to turn off. But anyone buying the electricity will ask themselves why they should pay a premium for nuclear electricity at the height of summer when the continent is flooded with solar

Here’s an article in Swedish how a reactor was turned off for about a week due to consistently low prices. While another reactor at the same plant was already having maintenance done.

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarna...

reply
Because when the continent is not flooded with solar, you still need/want power
reply
And nuclear power is the worst solution imaginable to do firming for renewables.

You need something with low CAPEX to do that. Which is the complete opposite of nuclear power.

reply
deleted
reply