[iTokio]

Yes I wonder if with the current trend, solar might become the real alternative, less expensive, less risky.

But to be fair, you have to consider your « aside », because nuclear has the tremendous advantage of working when it’s cloudy, dark and you need the energy the most in the winter.

I do not think that we can just compare the prices, or maybe we should also add the cost of storage (that is going down too) for solar.

But currently a mix is probably the pragmatic approach.

[kristopolous]

It's going to be solar + wind + battery. That's where the economics are at. Sodium batteries are just coming online now https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery - lithium is getting phased out.

Nuclear can't compete. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricit...

Maybe in some far off future nuclear will have a role... But the global energy investment markets paint a very clear picture: solar + wind + battery is the way.

[naasking]

Nuclear costs are largely due to regulatory burdens created for reactor designs that are not safe. That is no longer the case. Also, attempts to exploit economies of scale could also improve baseline costs, although these attempts haven't been funded enough yet to actually scale.

[Paradigma11]

But now you have a probabilistic system. Your battery part is designed for n numbers of low/no solar/wind input. So you are paying for a system that would be sufficient for x% of typical/historical years.

Which has to factor in the design and cost calculation.

[ekianjo]

Wind + solar is just adding another failure mode for when there is no wind. There are many places without adequate wind speed. Nuclear does not care about either, and has the highest energy density on top of that.