Renewable energy and storage are built without subsidies all over the world? 75% of all new capacity in TWh (i.e. corrected for capacity factor) is not built on feel good environmentalism. It is pure market economics.
I am applying the same measure to both. What renewable subsidies can do is speed up our uptake by stranding fossil assets faster. Which is why the fossil lobby is allying with nuclear power since it knows any money redirected to the nuclear industry will prolong the life of their fossil assets.
I think you got lost in the statistics. Your figures are for the US which are some of the highest in the world due to tariffs and a complex regulatory regime.
> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear
Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer and the countless started but then unfinished projects does not paint any prettier picture for western new built nuclear power.
> If this was just a price discussion then we wouldn't be where we are and gas and coal would be the cheapest option
That is where it started. Today renewables are the cheapest energy source in human history. It is cheaper all-in than the cost to run fully depreciated coal and gas plants.
What we are seeing is that for the first time in centuries we are lowering the global price floor for energy. From fossil fuels to renewables.
We’ve seen this happen in the past with hydro. Which famously is "geographically limited" after we quickly dammed up near every river globally
Nuclear power was an attempt at this starting 70 years ago. It didn’t deliver. It’s time we let go.
The renewables movement started as a way make our world better. Now we’re at the cusp of unlocking the next step of available energy for humanity while keeping it green.
Celebrate that rather than locking in useless handouts for new built nuclear power.
The time to invest in all alternatives was 20 years ago. We did that with for example the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The starting of Gen 3+ reactor projects all over the western world and similar measures.
We also started to really invest in renewables.
Based on this investment we can unequivocally say that new built nuclear power is a dead-end waste of taxpayer money while on the other hand renewables and storage are delivering way way way beyond our wildest dreams.
> Large scale storage is down to $50/kWh. Home storage less than $100/kWh.
Thank you. I too can read the data from the graph I reproduced in my comment. I know in a day of AI people might not read all the text they produce, but I did.
No need to provide another example, especially when your example includes subsidies.
Given this, I cannot take you as engaging in a serious conversation so I'm going to leave you to it now. It is clear you've treated the data with as much care as you gave to reading and understanding my own comment.
I am very familiar with the Lazard LCOE/LCOS/LCOH reports and have read them cover to cover every year since ~2018.
The data and examples I pointed out are nowhere to be found in your graph. For residential storage, which you mention when pointing to pages 19-20 they base it on data from page 43.
Where they find an initial battery cost of: $721 – $1,338 per kWh.
I linked you to residential batteries at a cost of $66.1/kWh. Available off-the-shelf today in Europe. Unsubsidized.
This is unsurprising given that you can buy individual A-grade LFP cells for $50/kWh in Europe.
Don't you think lowering the cost by a factor of 11 to 20 is enough to completely rethink the calculus compared to your "graph"?
The western residential storage market is completely out of wack. You can often get a BEV at a lower price per kWh than home storage. And that includes a car.
> No need to provide another example, especially when your example includes subsidies.
>> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear
> Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer ...
...doesn't broaden the data on which you base your conclusions nearly enough to make any broad predictions. Even if things were normal, a couple of hand-picked examples don't show much of anything. But things are not "normal" with that selection.
All of these projects are of just two reactor types, the Westinghouse AP-1000 and the French EPR.
One of these has even been discontinued by its manufacturer, because it was too difficult to build. Do you know which?
All of these builds were also First of a Kind (FOAK) builds. Westinghouse had submitted plans for the AP-1000 to the NRC that were not actually buildable. Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them?
Speaking of the different between FOAK and NOAK builds (Nth of a Kind): China's first two AP-1000 reactors took about 10 years to build. They are now building a slightly uprated version, the CAP-14000 (so 1,4GW electric instead of 1,0GW), in 5 years. For $3.5 bn.
Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built.
Are you saying we need to broaden our data to imaginary reactors the west did not build to pad the numbers?
The currently proposed handout from tax money for the French EPR2 fleet is 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely.
> Do you think that generalizes to future AP-1000 builds, now that they have modified the plans to make them buildable and have, you know, built them?
Yes. The total cost for the proposed three Polish AP1000s is $47B. The final cost for Vogtle was $37B. A near equivalent cost per GW. Poland haven't even started building and thus haven't begun to enter the long tail of cost increases for nuclear construction. Only beaten in size by the
Olympics and nuclear waste storage.
> Coming back to FOAK builds: Hinkley Point C had 7000 changes applied by the regulator to the design while it was being built.
Lets blame everything on ”FOAK”. Despite Hinkley point C being reactor 5 and 6 in the EPR series. But that is of course ”FOAK”.
Then allude that the next UK reactor will be cheaper. Despite the projected cost for Sizewell C is £38B before even starting compared to the current projection at £42-48B for Hinkley Point C.
Sizewell C will be two EPR reactors. You know, the reactor you called discontinued. Despite it not being discontinued.
I am applying the same measure to both. What renewable subsidies can do is speed up our uptake by stranding fossil assets faster. Which is why the fossil lobby is allying with nuclear power since it knows any money redirected to the nuclear industry will prolong the life of their fossil assets.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-12-09/nuclear-e...
I think you got lost in the statistics. Your figures are for the US which are some of the highest in the world due to tariffs and a complex regulatory regime.
> 2) Vogtle is Lazard's ONLY source of data for new nuclear
Adding Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, the proposed EPR2 fleet, Virgil C. Summer and the countless started but then unfinished projects does not paint any prettier picture for western new built nuclear power.
This is an eye-opening list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_react...
That only contains the cancelled reactors, there's a bunch which is still in limbo.
> You're also going to be very interested with pages 19-20 for storage costs. In particular the cost of residential storage.
Large scale storage is down to $50/kWh. Home storage less than $100/kWh.
These are prices you can access in for example Europe and Australia, but it won’t be a western company.
See for example:
https://www.docanpower.com/eu-stock/zz-48kwh-50kwh-51-2v-942...
> If this was just a price discussion then we wouldn't be where we are and gas and coal would be the cheapest option
That is where it started. Today renewables are the cheapest energy source in human history. It is cheaper all-in than the cost to run fully depreciated coal and gas plants.
What we are seeing is that for the first time in centuries we are lowering the global price floor for energy. From fossil fuels to renewables.
We’ve seen this happen in the past with hydro. Which famously is "geographically limited" after we quickly dammed up near every river globally
Nuclear power was an attempt at this starting 70 years ago. It didn’t deliver. It’s time we let go.
The renewables movement started as a way make our world better. Now we’re at the cusp of unlocking the next step of available energy for humanity while keeping it green.
Celebrate that rather than locking in useless handouts for new built nuclear power.
The time to invest in all alternatives was 20 years ago. We did that with for example the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The starting of Gen 3+ reactor projects all over the western world and similar measures.
We also started to really invest in renewables.
Based on this investment we can unequivocally say that new built nuclear power is a dead-end waste of taxpayer money while on the other hand renewables and storage are delivering way way way beyond our wildest dreams.