@DamonHD @otfrom @jwildeboer Nuclear is a cheaper way to replace fossil fuels (at least once you get the construction going, and not just building one plant after 40 years of nothing)

@fcalva @otfrom @jwildeboer The 'cheaper' is widely contested for a number of reasons, but indeed also not building any for decades and forgetting how to do it does not help!

@DamonHD @otfrom @jwildeboer What reasons ? The upfront cost is high (it's also why there are few privately built nuclear plants), but the running costs per Wh are very low.

@leftlink @fcalva There is value in having non-correlated low-carbon sources, even when some costs differ, because that reduces system/balancing costs.

@DamonHD @fcalva
Yeah I'd take some nuclear as baseload, but what is mostly forgotten in nuclear power is the inflexibility of it. You can't reduce / increase output fast enough, so you need battery storage as well. At which point just take solar/ wind.