• Nuclear power’s “cheap, clean, and secure” promise is breaking down.
• Small modular reactors (SMRs) remain largely theoretical, with the only advanced U.S. project cancelled over high costs.
• Renewables and storage now dominate energy economics, offering faster build times, flexibility, and lower prices.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclears-Costly-Comeback-Meets-Harsh-Market-Reality.html

 

 

Renewables are a scam to create business and money for the future, and how they save many industries by reseting things and make everyone buy stuff again and again. There is some environmental sense to this over the long term, but it's the long game as most EVs have huge carbon footprints to make in the first place and ICE cars are less polluting to make. 

Don't believe it, then watch your lefty darling Micheal Moore's take on it... which I think is spot on.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Renewables are a scam to create business and money for the future, and how they save many industries by reseting things and make everyone buy stuff again and again. There is some environmental sense to this over the long term, but it's the long game as most EVs have huge carbon footprints to make in the first place and ICE cars are less polluting to make. 

Don't believe it, then watch your lefty darling Micheal Moore's take on it... which I think is spot on.

 

 

Michael Moore's movie has long been thoroughly debunked. The only thing I recall from it was that it claimed an absurdly low conversion factor for solar energy. Something like 8%

Apart from it's badly dated. Batteries have come way down in price since then as as have solar and wind. Particularly solar.

Anyway, here's a  link to a thorough debunking of this silly documentary:

https://sashaleidman.medium.com/a-minute-by-minute-breakdown-of-all-of-the-misinformation-in-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-900371710444

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Michael Moore's movie has long been thoroughly debunked. The only thing I recall from it was that it claimed an absurdly low conversion factor for solar energy. Something like 8%

Apart from it's badly dated. Batteries have come way down in price since then as as have solar and wind. Particularly solar.

Anyway, here's a  link to a thorough debunking of this silly documentary:

https://sashaleidman.medium.com/a-minute-by-minute-breakdown-of-all-of-the-misinformation-in-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-900371710444

 

Well,

 

Just now, Sir Dude said:

 

Well,

 

I've offered you a link to a detailed rebuttal of the claims made in the documentary, and this is all you've got? An all-purpose meme?

Opinions are like <deleted>... you either agree or not. I just say what I think... not here to get into any discussions. People either agree or not... up to you. Couldn't care less if you want to troll or be self-righteous... you will not change anyone's opinion as that boat has sailed long ago.

Just now, Sir Dude said:

Opinions are like <deleted>... you either agree or not. I just say what I think... not here to get into any discussions. People either agree or not... up to you. Couldn't care less if you want to troll or be self-righteous... you will not change anyone's opinion as that boat has sailed long ago.

Apparently, for you, disagreeing is self-righteousness and offering counter evidence is a form of trolling. Do you post stuff in this forum in the expectation that in response to your post members will just say "Amen"?

Guess we are done here hero. 

Just now, Sir Dude said:

Guess we are done here hero. 

Close. I would say your comments are done for.

the only feasible energy storage at scale is pumping water up stream, to use twice.

its a shame europe took down fully functional nuclear plants,

now we have to build them again, until fusion energy finally works

22 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Guess we are done here hero. 

Seems you've lost.

 

Maybe next time...

8 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Seems you've lost.

 

Maybe next time...

No... just opinion. Everyone has one... I don't do bitching BS... like it or leave it. It's all subjective. However, the bullying and self-denial gaslighting is strong on this forum.

13 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

the only feasible energy storage at scale is pumping water up stream, to use twice.

its a shame europe took down fully functional nuclear plants,

now we have to build them again, until fusion energy finally works

Because you like really really expensive electricity that comes from huge cost overruns? That private industry refuses to build without government imposed guarantees? The renewable energy industry has made huge progress in the latest years, way ahead of schedule with prices still going down. Unlike nuclear power plants which almost always get built way over schedule and way over cost.

5 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

No... just opinion. Everyone has one... I don't do bitching BS... like it or leave it. It's all subjective.

"It's all subjective."

First an all purpose meme to justify unwillingness to engage with facts  and now a 3 word sentence to do the same.

16 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Unlike nuclear power plants which almost always get built way over schedule and way over cost.

https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

Three-Mile Island Reactor, at least one of them, will be restored to service by Microsoft.

This is actually a very good move.

 

I think it can produce about 1.5 gigawatts of clean electricity.

 

I once visited that reactor site.

It is HUGE...

 

I recall when it experienced its failure.

By that time, I was in Taiwan, sometime around 1979, as I recall.

 

Just now, Mike_Hunt said:

https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

NuScale cancels first-of-a-kind nuclear project as costs surge

he country’s first expected commercial small modular reactor was scrapped by NuScale Power on Wednesday, delivering a major setback to the advanced nuclear industry.

NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a group of local electric utilities that had agreed to purchase power from the project, mutually decided to terminate what was known as the Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP), according to a news release. NuScale is the only U.S. developer with a design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a small modular reactor (SMR).

https://www.eenews.net/articles/nuscale-cancels-first-of-a-kind-nuclear-project-as-costs-surge/

 

Now it's got a deal with the TVA, a quasi -governmental agency.  I see that solar and battery demand is still increasing despite Trump's enmity with private energy suppliers.  Will the TVA, be allowed, like the utilities, to pass on the costs of building these things before they actually come online? And if they fail, will ratepayers still be liable for the costs incurred? That's the case now due to legislation passed by some states.

 

For decades we've been hearing promises that cheap nuclear power is around the corner. But the fact is that the one power source getting cheaper and cheaper is renewables.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Because you like really really expensive electricity that comes from huge cost overruns? That private industry refuses to build without government imposed guarantees? The renewable energy industry has made huge progress in the latest years, way ahead of schedule with prices still going down. Unlike nuclear power plants which almost always get built way over schedule and way over cost.

i want dependable 24/7 energy, the world is far too cold for anything else to be valid

37 minutes ago, mordothailand said:

i want dependable 24/7 energy, the world is far too cold for anything else to be valid

You keep on wishing for that. Maybe Santa will deliver. Until then, ponder this:

 

Why a Texas nuclear power plant stopped producing electricity Friday
Enough electricity to power almost 250,000 homes disappeared from the Texas grid Friday. ERCOT tapped a newly-created reserve system to prevent an emergency.

A problem at a Texas nuclear power plant Friday caused a sudden dip in electricity supply, forcing the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to tap a brand new reserve system to stabilize the grid...

Some nuclear power came back online gradually Sunday, an indication normal operations are resuming. 

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-nuclear-power-plant-stopped-producing-electricity-friday-not-clear-why/287-351a43c9-8073-45af-afb6-e3fac2a18c8f

 

There's plenty more like that.

8 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

• Nuclear power’s “cheap, clean, and secure” promise is breaking down.
• Small modular reactors (SMRs) remain largely theoretical, with the only advanced U.S. project cancelled over high costs.
• Renewables and storage now dominate energy economics, offering faster build times, flexibility, and lower prices.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclears-Costly-Comeback-Meets-Harsh-Market-Reality.html

 

 

 

First SMR of 4 planned under construction in Ontario.

 

 

13 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

It's all subjective.

Facts are not subjective. You have an opinion based on nothing, others have an opinion based on facts.

5 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

 

First SMR of 4 planned under construction in Ontario.

 

 

It's always important to provide links. Not because I don't believe the story isn't true but I would like to find out what if anything it says about what the electricity it produces is going to cost.

Here's a link to an article from the Canadian government which is supporting these power plants. From what I read there, it looks like costs are going to be a lot higher than they are for renewable energy even with battery backup. 

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2025/market-snapshot-canadas-role-in-small-modular-reactor-smr-technology.html#:~:text=This builds on Canada's decades,America and among OECD countries.

15 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Small modular reactors (SMRs) remain largely theoretical

Unless you're Russian or Chinese.  It's going to be the future link between current power needs and the advent of fusion reactors.

From Grok:

What is the status of the use of SMR including Thorium reactors.

Status of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represent an advanced class of nuclear reactors designed for scalability, enhanced safety, and reduced construction timelines through factory-based modular assembly. As of November 2025, the global SMR landscape is characterized by significant progress in design certification, regulatory approvals, and early deployments, though commercial-scale operations remain primarily projected for the late 2020s and 2030s. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) reports 127 SMR technologies under development, with 74 in detailed review, including seven operational or under construction. The market value is estimated at $6.9 billion for 2025, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.1% from 2024, driven by demands for decarbonization, energy security, and support for high-energy applications such as data centers.

Key Developments and Deployments
- **Operational and Near-Term Projects**: Russia and China lead in operational SMRs. Russia's floating Akademik Lomonosov plant (70 MWe) has been commercially operational since 2020, while China's HTR-PM high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (210 MWe) connected to the grid in 2021. In Canada, Ontario Power Generation received construction approval in April 2025 for the GE Hitachi BWRX-300 (300 MWe) at Darlington, with operations targeted for 2029 and three additional units planned at a total cost of CA$13.2 billion.
- **Regulatory Approvals**: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted standard design approval in June 2025 to NuScale Power's uprated SMR (77 MWe per module, scalable to 924 MWe), enabling broader applications. Additional NuScale variants (VOYGR-4 and VOYGR-6) received NRC approval earlier in 2025. In the UK, GE Hitachi's BWRX-300 advanced to the final phase of the Generic Design Assessment in 2025, with four deployment sites identified for the mid-2030s.
- **Funding and Policy Support**: The U.S. Department of Energy reissued a $900 million solicitation in March 2025 to de-risk Generation III+ light-water SMR deployments, with applications due in April. The European Commission launched a call for evidence in November 2025 to inform its SMR strategy, due in early 2026, building on the European Industrial Alliance's 2025-2029 action plan for early-2030s deployments. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts the first commercial SMR projects operational around 2030, with global nuclear generation reaching new highs in 2025 from existing fleets.

Challenges
Despite momentum, challenges include high initial costs (potentially comparable to large reactors per kilowatt), supply chain gaps, and backend fuel cycle management for waste. A 2025 IAEA/OECD-NEA review emphasizes integrating fuel cycle considerations from design phases to avoid historical delays.

 

Status of Thorium Reactors

Thorium-based reactors utilize thorium-232 as a fertile material, which transmutes to fissile uranium-233, offering advantages such as greater abundance (three times that of uranium), reduced long-lived waste, and lower proliferation risks compared to uranium cycles. As of November 2025, thorium technology remains largely experimental, with no large-scale commercial deployments. The global market is valued at approximately $440-450 million, projecting a modest CAGR of 2.3% through 2033, constrained by high development costs and regulatory hurdles. Interest stems from thorium's potential in sustainable energy transitions, as highlighted in a 2025 IAEA analysis.

Key Developments and Deployments
- **China's Leadership**: China dominates thorium research, leveraging domestic reserves and rare-earth mining byproducts. The experimental TMSR-LF1 (2 MWt) molten-salt reactor in Wuwei achieved criticality in October 2023, full-power operation in June 2024, and successful thorium-to-uranium conversion in November 2025—the world's first such demonstration. Refueling without shutdown was accomplished in April 2025. Construction of a 10 MWt demonstration reactor in the Gobi Desert began in 2025, targeting 2030 operations, followed by a 60 MWt pilot by 2029. Commercial thorium reactors are planned for 2030.
- **Historical and Other Efforts**: The U.S. demonstrated thorium feasibility in the 1977-1982 Shippingport LWBR (60 MWe), achieving a breeding ratio of 1.014. Current international interest includes IAEA-coordinated projects analyzing thorium in water-cooled and molten-salt designs. India holds 1.07 million tonnes of thorium reserves and is developing the 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor as a thorium prototype.

Challenges
Thorium requires precise neutron management for breeding, and infrastructure for fuel fabrication remains underdeveloped. Proliferation concerns with uranium-233 persist, though designs like Denmark's Copenhagen Atomics emphasize safeguards.

Integration of Thorium in SMR Designs

Thorium's compatibility with SMRs is under active evaluation, particularly in molten-salt and light-water configurations, to enhance fuel efficiency and waste reduction. As of 2025, no operational thorium SMRs exist, but conceptual and experimental integrations show promise.

Key Developments
- **Design Studies**: Neutronic analyses indicate thorium-uranium mixed oxide ((Th/U)O2) fuels can extend SMR cycle lengths with minimal geometry changes, as demonstrated in assessments of Korea's SMART reactor. A 2025 comparative study evaluated thorium compositions like (Th-235U)O2 in annular SMR assemblies, showing superior conversion ratios and reduced plutonium buildup.
- **Prototype and Plans**: China's smTMSR-400 (400 MWth, ~168 MWe) thorium molten-salt SMR targets construction in 2030 for modular deployment in remote areas. India's Bharat Small Reactors program, funded at ₹20,000 crore, includes thorium-based molten-salt SMRs by 2033. Canada's 2023 pre-licensing review approved a molten-salt SMR concept compatible with thorium.
- **Molten-Salt Synergies**: Liquid-fuel MSRs dissolve thorium in salt coolants, enabling online reprocessing; China's TMSR-LF1 validates this for SMR-scale applications.

Challenges
Thorium SMRs face absorber pin degradation from high burnups and the need for new supply chains. Optimization requires balancing safety, longevity, and scalability.

In summary, SMRs are advancing toward commercial viability with strong policy and investment support, while thorium reactors, including SMR variants, are in experimental phases led by China, with broader adoption contingent on overcoming technical and economic barriers. These technologies collectively support global decarbonization goals, potentially expanding nuclear's role in low-carbon energy systems.

14 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I've offered you a link to a detailed rebuttal of the claims made in the documentary, and this is all you've got? An all-purpose meme?

Not only that but the post seems to the fact that the vast majority of responses on this forum are opinions, nothing should be taken as fact, a few responses here are backed up with statistical data and surveys, but 99% of the replies on this forum are simply opinions, so why get all hot and bothered about them? 

Hopefully this is just the beginning, don't forget Germany used nuclear reactors to provide relatively inexpensive energy for decades without a single incident, before the green party shut them down and that resulted in the most expensive electric cost in Europe right now.

 

The design was far safer than any existing plant, with the temperatures held under control by the laws of physics instead of human operators who can make mistakes. It would have a shorter construction timeline and be cheaper to operate. And it would be reliable, providing dependable power throughout the day and night. As I looked at the plans for this new reactor, I saw how rethinking nuclear power could overcome the barriers that had hindered it—and revolutionize how we generate power in the U.S. and around the world.

 

So, we started TerraPower, where nuclear scientists could take the concept and transform it into a reality. Since then, the amazing team at TerraPower has proven we can do nuclear better. They are leading the country—and the world—in developing safe, next-generation nuclear technology.

 

America’s first next-gen nuclear facility | Bill Gates https://share.google/GcIwRK5glvfw3z3jC

1 minute ago, connda said:

Unless you're Russian.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) remain largely theoretical.

Better?

China is also building them and has a few in operation. But nothing i could find about whether or not they make actual economic sense.

Just now, spidermike007 said:

Hopefully this is just the beginning, don't forget Germany used nuclear reactors to provide relatively inexpensive energy for decades without a single incident, before the green party shut them down and that resulted in the most expensive electric cost in Europe right now.

 

The design was far safer than any existing plant, with the temperatures held under control by the laws of physics instead of human operators who can make mistakes. It would have a shorter construction timeline and be cheaper to operate. And it would be reliable, providing dependable power throughout the day and night. As I looked at the plans for this new reactor, I saw how rethinking nuclear power could overcome the barriers that had hindered it—and revolutionize how we generate power in the U.S. and around the world.

 

So, we started TerraPower, where nuclear scientists could take the concept and transform it into a reality. Since then, the amazing team at TerraPower has proven we can do nuclear better. They are leading the country—and the world—in developing safe, next-generation nuclear technology.

 

America’s first next-gen nuclear facility | Bill Gates https://share.google/GcIwRK5glvfw3z3jC

Like France's nuclear power plants, Germany's depended heavily on subsidies. 

For example. Nuclear waste disposal. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_17_1669

Here's what the Fukushima cleanup cost from a report dated Nov. 28, 2016.

Japan Fukushima nuclear plant 'clean-up costs double'

Japan's government estimates the cost of cleaning up radioactive contamination and compensating victims of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster has more than doubled, reports say.

The latest estimate from the trade ministry put the expected cost at some 20 trillion yen ($180bn, £142bn).

The original estimate was for $50bn, which was increased to $100bn three years later.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

It's no wonder that private insurers will only insure a small fraction of the potential liability.

 

And given that the Green party in Germany was and is a smallish minority party, it couldn't have shut down the plants. In fact, at the time it was a popular move in the wake of the Fukushima incident.