Thread

1. PowerElectronix · 1790780599 · focus · HN ↗

   What a waste of money, manpower and space.

   1. nsxwolf · 1790780632 · focus · HN ↗

      Why do you say so?

      1. allears · 1790783669 · focus · HN ↗

         Here's a quote from everybody's favorite AI:

         The most useful comparison: cost per MWh

         Rather than comparing construction bills directly, levelized cost of energy (LCOE) incorporates construction, financing, operating expenses, fuel, and the amount of electricity produced.

         Lazard's 2026 estimates are approximately:

             Utility solar: $40–$88/MWh
         
             Utility solar + storage: $61–$105/MWh
         
             Nuclear: $141–$276/MWh
         

         These are unsubsidized estimates and represent a range of project assumptions rather than guaranteed costs. Lazard specifically notes that its nuclear estimate is based on the publicly available costs of Vogtle 3 and 4, while its solar-plus-storage figure incorporates both generation and storage.

         1. killerstorm · 1790787160 · focus · HN ↗

            There's not much sun in the northern areas in winter. Storage might cover 12 hours worth of usage, not 6 months of usage, including all the heating.

            1. PowerElectronix · 1790798059 · focus · HN ↗

               The northern areas are closer to the equator than half of europe, where sun power seems to do just fine all year round.

               1. killerstorm · 1790801482 · focus · HN ↗

                  ?

                  Are you confusing "uses solar power" with "could rely solely on solar power"?

                  And norther areas of what, exactly? I mean that there are areas where nuclear power would be useful (as it can displace coal/natgas).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.