Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cbmuser's commentslogin

»It could be but the US and EU have so far been unable to build commercial fission reactors without going 2x+ over budget in time and money.«

The EU also forgot how to build airports and train stations on budget and on time.

Should we stop building airports and train stations?

As for nuclear power plants: Germany and France built most of their reactors on budget and on time.


50+ years ago, not relevant.


Wind and solar existed in the 70s as well.

Plus, Germany invested 500 billion Euros in its energy transition and is STILL heavily dependent on coal.


They’re at ~60% total power from renewables in 2025, and increasing every quarter. I’d say they’re doing pretty well! The coal is unfortunate, but was due to the Ukraine war and gas situation.


> Wind and solar existed in the 70s as well.

Not really. Solar has gone down in price almost 500X since 1975.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices

Wind has gone down significantly too.

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54526.pdf

Meanwhile, the graph for nuclear waste disposal is going rapidly in the opposite direction.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-6587/us-spent-fuel-liabilit...

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph240/kendall1/


> Wind and solar existed in the 70s as well.

This is basically nonsense to the extent that it is becoming difficult to extend the presumption of good faith to you. In the 70s solar panels cost US$25+ per peak watt, in 02021-adjusted dollars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#/media/File:Solar...

Now they cost 5.9¢ per peak watt: https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis...

Installing a gigawatt of solar power generation capacity for US$25 billion is in no way comparable to installing a gigawatt of solar power generation capacity for US$59 million.

Wind power has experienced a similar but less extreme cost decline.


»Your citation comes from an organization with pro nuclear bias.«

Go and throw all your money into renewables stocks and ETFs if you’re so convinced.

I bet you’re not doing that because you realize that the industry isn’t doing well and it’s nuclear power nowadays where all the money goes.


Personally, I've invested ~500k EUR in a Portuguese Golden Visa fund invested in renewables (IRR is ~7-13%). Macro speaking, renewables investments keep hitting new records. I am convinced, and if you are not, I would strongly suggest consuming more data, because you appear to have a potential blind spot in your mental model on this topic.

https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-renewabl...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-28/white-...


»Enough renewables are deployed annually to replace the global nuclear fission fleet, year after year, even when accounting for capacity factor derating (to make a like for like comparison).«

Wind and solar do not replace conventional power plants and never will.

Heck, Germany tried that on the small island of Pellworm and failed and yet some people think this will work out for the whole country.

It does not work.


Pellworm is something like 95% renewable without storage. That really doesn’t sound like failure to me.


Look at Electricity Maps and realize that France is the only large industrial country where electricity generation is permanently carbon-free and cheap.

https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of...


Yes, but unfortunately that is because it is coasting on decades old labor and capital investment that will not be made again. It is not permanent, as it will cost tens of billions of euros to continue to operate those generators reaching the end of their service life.


Norway, Iceland and British Columbia are other examples and are more carbon-free than France is. The latter isn't a country and the former don't count as "large industrial"?


Or just build out nuclear like France and pay just 20 Cents per kWh.

https://particulier.edf.fr/content/dam/2-Actifs/Documents/Of...


The two nukes that recently came on line in the US were so over budget and timeline that all customers now pay a “surcharge” on their bill to pay for it.

Western counties building nukes is so expensive it makes the cost of electricity go up.


Can confirm, I live in Georgia.

The real stickler is that just from pure lucky timing, data centers will likely be the direct beneficiaries of the third reactor coming online at the Vogle plant here in Georgia. So taxpayers foot and will foot the bill, and meanwhile our governor and mayor are tripping over themselves giving tax breaks to data centers.


France is a western country with its own economic and labour troubles. The enormous expense of building nukes in the US is entirely its own making and much more complicated than just "western" inefficiency.


You might want to look up flammanville. They built a new reactor there and that also took 20 years or so and was way over budget.

We've built a lot of nuclear in the last century and then largely stopped. A lot of the know how is gone which is what we're paying for now.

Also, in France, all those reactors were largely the same leading to economies of scale when building them. Everything we build today is essentially a one of so you don't get to spread that cost over multiple.


The French were also practicing negative learning by doing.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...


Hyper administrative state-capitalist economies all have the same problem with infrastructure. The US has an image of being more capitalist and efficient, which is true to a degree, but once you get a large-scale project that hits all fed->state->municipal politics it's not much different than France. It's just minor variations of who the mandatory 'stakeholders' are ...who demands a cut and who delays/blocks progress.

As soon as some project is being pitched by politicians as "creating thousands of local jobs" it's either DOA or will be many years late and over budget.


State subsided construction and maintenance doesn’t pass straight through to consumer prices.

Also, France can’t build new nuclear for cheap/fast anymore either. They have a program for new reactors, even if they go ahead the first one won’t come online till 2038 by the earliest. We can’t wait that long.


The French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power.

Flamanville 3 is 7x over budget and 12 years late on a 5 year construction program. The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles.

Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies.

Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026. And the French government just fell and was reformed because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix.

A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!


Yes please from the UK, where it’s 27 euro cents per kWh currently.


does it matter much when in the end pricing is decided by merit-order system [1]? i.e. when you are dependent on other sources or neighbouring markets with very different composition.

not to say it is remains costlier than conventional sources, albeit not accounting for externalities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_order


I pay 21 cents per kWh and only 11% of my grid is nuclear.


It sounds great in theory but doesn’t work in practice.

Just compare Germany to France.


This is such a tired trope. The differences between the two countries present day energy situation doesn’t tell you anything about how the world should proceed tomorrow.

Unless you have a time machine that you can use to get every country to build state subsided nuclear 50 years ago.


Not even France can replicate their nuclear construction of decades ago.


We’re trying that in Germany while we’re still heavily dependent on coal while our electricity prices are twice as much compared to France.

I’m sorry, but wind and solar may be cheap, but they don’t provide cheap electricity 24/7.


which is why dispatchable power is required - not coal?


Yes, that is being worked on.


They’re not going to fall to the wayside, we’re eventually getting Rust support on these.

It’s just a bit annoying that Rust proponents are being so pushy in some cases as if Rust was the solution to everything.


Can you actually install Debian on an Amiga - or other 68k system - now? I’ve been searching around the web and I haven’t found much evidence that you can.

This is not intended to bash you or anyone else who’s working on it - I think it’s a cool project (I have in the recent past got an 86duino ZERO to run Gentoo, just to see if an obscure old-ish piece of hardware can be useful with modern Linux on it - and it can). I do understand the reason a project like Debian might not want to have to spend resources even just to make it easier to do though.


Here is a recent blog post where somebody tried to install Debian on an Amiga 4000 with an 68040 running at 25 MHz.

https://sandervanderburg.blogspot.com/2025/01/running-linux-...

I didn't find what Debian version they tried but I think it's implied it's a recent version. They ran into memory issues. They had only 48MB while the recommendations are to use 64MB. It did boot though until it threw errors because of memory constraints.

They got a working system by trying Debian 3.1 though.


They're >20 years old and nobody seriously uses them for modern software. Come the fuck on. Let them go.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: