Fester,

There’s a big difference between an article examining cost factors and one proving nuclear is low-cost. The IFP article does the former. It lists reasons for high costs - including overregulation - but also points to project mismanagement, FOAK design changes, and financing risks.

You’ve cherry-picked one factor and ignored the rest.

You say Trump’s changes "could" make nuclear cheaper. Possibly. But the Bulletin article clearly frames these changes as politically driven, scientifically contested, and likely to erode public trust - which is the opposite of what a maturing nuclear industry needs. Framing this as a breakthrough while ignoring the backlash is selective at best.

If it was such a good idea, then it would have been done years ago. This is no different to every other policy of Trump's - hailed as genius, as though it took Trump to think of it: it hasn't been done because we already know it's a bad idea.

Your "Liberty ships" analogy is appealing in theory. But again, the IFP article itself shows this was only viable in the past because:

- Plants were smaller
- Designs were repeated
- Regulation was looser before major accidents (e.g. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)
- And public trust was not yet eroded

None of those conditions apply now.

A "worldwide collaborative effort" sounds good - except it’s been tried. France succeeded under a heavily centralised, state-backed, standardised system during the 1970s oil crisis. The US tried in the 2000s with the so-called "nuclear renaissance" - but Vogtle 3 and 4 are now a $35 billion cautionary tale.

And yes, decarbonisation is urgent. But what’s actually working - now, at scale - is wind, solar, and storage. They’re faster to deploy, cheaper per kWh, and don’t carry the same political baggage or risk profile. It's not "destroying our economy" to use the most efficient tools available.

You can dream of a nuclear revival all you like, but if it takes 15 years, $10 billion, and a miracle of deregulation to match what solar can do in 18 months, you’ve lost all perspective on the issue.

John

More Johnnywaffle.

"You’ve cherry-picked one factor and ignored the rest."

How is it cherry picking when it discusses all reasons? The statement is nonsensical.

"If it was such a good idea, then it would have been done years ago."

"but if it takes 15 years, $10 billion, and a miracle of deregulation to match what solar can do in 18 months,"

It was. Remember the French build that powered their electricity grid 150% in fifteen years? You seem to keep forgetting this fact. Can you name a nation that has done as much with wind and solar in fifteen years? No nation has come remotely close, yet you persist with your lie that wind and solar is faster? What's happened is a realisation that wind and solar don't cut it when it comes to powering national grids. That is why AI companies are pursuing nuclear and ignoring wind and solar.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/amazon-updates-smr-progress-with-new-images-of-proposed-plant

"- Regulation was looser before major accidents (e.g. TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima)"

Two of those "major accidents" killed one person between them, and most of the deaths from Chernobyl resulted from Russian government secrecy preventing the timely distribution of iodine tablets. Even with those accidents, nuclear ranks between wind and solar for the lowest risk of death, and it has arguably prevented millions of deaths by replacing fossil fuel generation.

ctd

"- And public trust was not yet eroded"

Public trust had been eroded ever since the bombing of Hiroshima, and much of the regulation stemmed from concerns about the effect of radiation. Since those times many of the fears have been found to be exaggerated or inaccurate, although you seem to do your bit to fan the flames of irrational fear.

"A "worldwide collaborative effort" sounds good - except it’s been tried."

If you want net zero, it has to be world wide. What stopped the French effort was a combination of oil discoveries and the lower cost of coal generation. Can Australia make the world net zero with its wind and solar idiocy?

"But what’s actually working - now, at scale - is wind, solar, and storage. They’re faster to deploy, cheaper per kWh, and don’t carry the same political baggage or risk profile."

That is a lie and not supported by any evidence, as every nation that has replaced its generation with wind and solar has seen costs rise proportionally to how much they build.

Three test reactors will reach criticality before July 4 2026. Trump is not wasting time or money on wind and solar scams.

https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/doe-announces-first-selections-for-pilot-reactor-programme

Wind and solar are a con.

Fester,

You’re conflating historic examples, cherry-picked industry announcements, and misleading generalisations.

//How is it cherry-picking when it discusses all reasons?//

Because you only emphasised one - regulation - as the barrier to low-cost nuclear, despite the IFP article clearly listing multiple causes: FOAK designs, financing risks, labour/material escalation, poor project management, etc. Mentioning others doesn’t count if you ignore them in your argument.

//It was. Remember the French build…//

Yes. Remember my response every time you raise it?

France built quickly under a centralised, state-run program with a standardised design and total political alignment - during an energy crisis. That’s not remotely replicable in liberal democracies today. It’s also not the private-sector-led miracle you’re now imagining.

//Can you name a nation that has done as much with wind and solar in fifteen years?//

Germany, Denmark, Spain, China, and Australia have all achieved massive renewable penetration in under 15 years. Australia hit over 35% grid penetration from virtually zero since 2010 - with solar rooftops alone at world-leading levels. Solar and wind builds go up in months, not decades.

//AI companies are pursuing nuclear…//

They're exploring SMRs, which remain unproven commercially. Your Amazon article is about a concept still under licensing review, with no confirmed site or deployment schedule. Hype ≠ solution.

//Nuclear ranks between wind and solar for lowest death risk…//

Correct. But that’s not the point.

The issue isn’t risk once running, but political, financial, and temporal viability. And deaths per TWh don’t make a $10B, 15-year project a rational climate strategy when faster, cheaper options exist now.

//Public trust had been eroded since Hiroshima…//

Then thank you for making my point - public mistrust is deeply embedded, and deregulating radiation limits won’t rebuild it. Quite the opposite.

//Every nation that built wind and solar saw costs rise.//

Blatantly false.

LCOE of renewables has plummeted. Australia, Portugal, and Texas have all seen wholesale prices drop during peak solar and wind production. Storage is improving yearly. The GenCost report and IEA confirm this.

//Wind and solar are a con.//

That’s not an argument. It’s a slogan. I’ll stick with evidence.

Nukes cost parliamentary jobs. Solar and wind is popular.
Nut cases keep spruking nukes, it damages your chances of ever seeing the govt: that you prefer. Nukes turns people off and obliterates political parties as we see.

Doog,

I'm only trying to make sense of things. If wind and solar are the cheapest and fastest then why are power prices so high and why is it taking so long? Why does every nation that pursues wind and solar end up with higher power prices? How did France power their entire grid in fifteen years with nuclear half a century ago (150% of) when Germany barely got over 20% over the past two decades with wind and solar? Why are all the tech companies (e.g. Google, Amazon, Bill Gates) pursuing the nuclear power option, many via smr startups, if wind and solar are so fantastic?

Power would have been much cheaper and more reliable had wind and solar not been pursued, but real world examples strongly suggest that nuclear is a better low carbon alternative to coal.

As for Dr Ridd, his "crime" seems to be one of being a scientist who reports his observations honestly. He observed the GBR, claimed to be in peril, found that it was in good health, and for that he has been condemned as a heretic. And here is presenting research and argument against the claim of ocean acidification being catastrophic. No doubt he will be further vilified for his honesty and integrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQE6Fbr9y0