Hacker News Reader

Comment by lnsru | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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?

* https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2025/july/2024-25-genc...

I heard Australia is pretty sunny country. If that’s right they can go with solar and be alright. Sweden has less options for sure.

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.

Because the nuclear issue in Australia is highly politicized and the report is deeply flawed?

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/the-flaws-in-c...

https://theconversation.com/known-unknowns-controversy-over-...

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.

Except it does because the money saved on generation can be used to pay for extra transmission capacity and storage.

Solar and wind aren't 20% cheaper than nuclear power they're 20% of the price of nuclear power.

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.

> Offshore wind is cheaper than coal in China now. Which also makes it much cheaper than nuclear in China.

Citation needed.

China reportedly builds the CAP-1400, a localized and uprated version of the passively safe Westinghouse AP-1000, in 5 years and for around $3.5 billion.

Serial production of a known-good design with a savvy workforce rocks!

If those reported numbers are correct, which I cannot verify, they can profitably sell that electricy at 2 cents/kWh or below.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com