Sun isn't profitable. We should just extinguish it.

Efficient use of resources still matters in a service-driven model.

The service in this case is to provide electricity - if other alternatives can provide the same system of electricity while using less resources in the process, then it is clearly preferable.

The things are very much run as private companies under the pretense of being profitable. The whole purpose of nukes (other than providing weapons grade material) is shoveling public money into private pockets.

Honestly I think renewables are at a place where it doesnt really matter much anymore. My perception has been that its propaganda, but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject

Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh

Can we assume that, after factoring in the actual portion that the accounting says goes to the power plant itself? The economics of utility scale electricity includes both generation and transmission, so you can't just take that retail price and assume it all goes to the power plant that produced the electricity.

Wholesale prices tend to stay below 10 cents in most parts of the country, although it sometimes spikes when grids are under strain. I think that's probably a more fair assumption of how much the power plants themselves are paid for their production.

It can't. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn't worth it.

The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it's a combo deal) and especially more "for the people" (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).

I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn't in any way shape or form. Countries who're dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They're building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.

If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission).

Pushing all the problems nuclear brings to the future is the exact same mistake past generations have done with fossil fuels.

If we don't combat climate change now, we never will.

You can cherry pick the numbers to show whatever you like.

Wikipedia has an article on the economics of nuclear power. To summarize: it's expensive upfront. If you look at it from a pure commercial enterprise it's not really worth it. If you look at it as decarbonizing the future it's better.

Solar and wind is cheaper, but intermittent and it's a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings

I feel like the deeper truth highlighted here is that being pro-nuclear, or anti-anti-nuclear, is very much a “reddit” style opinion.

Whatever the actual truth is, that is. It seems to fall neatly into the “I know something and can make a ‘well actyooally’ argument about it” category without having expertise like being on top of the historical financial performance and context of the technology, about which I personally know nothing.