zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. mattma+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:38:44
It would. People are still building some natural gas plants even despite renewables being cheaper and nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that and, other than regulatory issues, is basically better in every way.
replies(4): >>9rx+d4 >>prpl+05 >>jerlam+9f >>LorenP+gS7
2. 9rx+d4[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:53:58
>>mattma+(OP)
> nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that

That is the case for base load generation, where the plant can operate near 100% capacity all the time. But that isn't were gas is usually being deployed; it being used for reserve generation. The economics of nuclear isn't as favourable in that application as it costs more or less the same to run at partial generation, or even no generation, as it does when it is going full blast.

replies(1): >>mattma+6V3
3. prpl+05[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:57:12
>>mattma+(OP)
There will continue to be new gas plants as long as there are coal plants which will be converted, usually around the time a major overhaul would need to be taken anyway.
4. jerlam+9f[view] [source] 2026-02-03 17:39:58
>>mattma+(OP)
Nuclear might be better and cheaper over it's entire lifecycle; but given that the starting costs are so high, the time to build is so long, and the US has serious problems with cost overruns in public projects, as well as the fickleness of both government and public opinion, I don't expect another plant to be built.
replies(1): >>mattma+3t3
◧◩
5. mattma+3t3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 15:00:10
>>jerlam+9f
Well we were speaking of costs in a hypothetical future in which regulations are sane. I don’t expect that to happen either but if it did, the economics would work.
◧◩
6. mattma+6V3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 17:02:48
>>9rx+d4
Right, but in the context of data centers, it’s all about baseload anyway, right? If data centers become a big driver of energy use, there will be a lot lower fluctuation between peak and trough demand.

I can imagine a future in which every data center has a little baby nuclear plant built right next to it. Watts per acre may become a significant measurement of density. Solar’s environmental impact is of course dramatically overstated by its opponents, but it won’t be when we scale it up and have to start slashing forests for it.

replies(1): >>9rx+Z54
◧◩◪
7. 9rx+Z54[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 17:50:34
>>mattma+6V3
If it were simply an option between nuclear or gas for that, nuclear would, generally, be the obvious choice. But it would be quite atypical to build a gas plant to provide base power. Typically they are being built to back up renewables.

Fair point that renewables may have a practical expansion limit, but for the time being are, by far, the cheapest option so a data centre is still going to prefer that source of power to the greatest extent possible, thereby leaving gas/nuclear only as reserve — of which nuclear has not proven to be cost effective at. Geothermal, hydro, etc. are hard to beat, but where you aren't sitting on the perfect environment, generally speaking, wind+solar+gas is about as good as it gets on a cost basis.

replies(1): >>mattma+805
◧◩◪◨
8. mattma+805[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 22:06:48
>>9rx+Z54
Yeah, and I'm all for all of it. I just can see a future in which nuclear (through some combination of regulatory reform and new technology) ends up becoming cost-feasible and fossil fuels fade away.
9. LorenP+gS7[view] [source] 2026-02-05 19:04:19
>>mattma+(OP)
Renewables are only "cheaper" because the market forces major subsidies. The reality is the value of renewables is the fuel they save. They do not replace the generators or any of the other stuff.
[go to top]