How many hundreds of billions in subsidies and decades wasted until we reach "NOAK with an experienced workforce and robust supply chain".
The real question is cumulative emissions. Cheap and fast, even if imperfect in the shorter timeframe wins the day.
The question to answer is: Poland. €100 billion. 2026. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?
> How many hundreds of billions in subsidies and decades wasted until we reach "NOAK with an experienced workforce and robust supply chain"
None. Nuclear is cheap and quick and investments in nuclear not wasted.
We have wasted decades going down the wrong path. As an example, Germany has spent almost 25 years on the failed "Energiewende" and we haven't even completed the easy half. Nuclear did not require subsidies. Intermitten renewables anywhere from €30-50 billion just in subsidies. Per year.
France converted its electricity grid to nuclear in 15 years. For a total of €228 billion in 2011 money. Not "per year", not "subsidies". But total investment.
This does not seem at all grounded in reality? Just all around misinfomration.
The existing French nuclear fleet was built with enormous state support. Germany pays €18B in EEG support. And that is decreasing as old extremely expensive renewables are leaving the problem.
What you are doing is crying about late 2000s and early 2010s renewables being expensive. Let me ask you, what relevance does that have in 2026? We don't pay those prices today.
The reality in 2026 is the outcome of Flamanville 3, Vogtle, Hinkley point C. Then we have modern projects, and proposed subsidies like:
- Darlington SMR: Close to Vogtle - Polish AP1000: Vogtle like - Czech APR1000: A step below Vogtle. - French EPR2 fleet: Absolutely insane at €100 per MWh and interest free loans alreay assuming large learning effects.
And that is before the usual timeline and budget overruns for new nuclear has happened.
Given this reply it seems like you are straying farther reality since the prospect of new nuclear is crumbling. You're not even presenting a logically sound argument. Its just victim complex and dreaming about times past.
The question to answer still remains: Poland. €100 billion. 2026. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?
The only one straying from reality is you, and yes, your misinformation is tiring.
The nuclear renaissance is in full swing.
FACT SHEET: The Golden Era of American Nuclear Energy Has Arrived
https://www.energy.gov/articles/fact-sheet-golden-era-americ...
2026/09/25 | The Nuclear Renaissance: Financing the Global Expansion
https://fiasi.org/events/event/2026-09-25-the-nuclear-renais...
The nuclear power renaissance in the 21st century: Analyzing past trends, present status, and future outlook
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026NucAn...500231A/abstra...
Clear-Eyed about Nuclear Renaissance
https://events.weforum.org/en/events/world-economic-forum-an...
A government press release, a financing conference, an academic abstract and a WEF panel. None of those links demonstrates that new nuclear is cheap or quick.
If new nuclear was cheap and quick, why are the recently proposed western subsidies tens of billions per reactor? This just doesn't add you. You realize that right?
Your own financing conference link acknowledges construction costs in the tens of billions, timelines exceeding a decade and unresolved financing.
The DOE fact sheet lists billions in government support. Does that sound cheap and quick to build?
All the links you've presented looks like an industry despereately public handouts from tax money.
But this is not surprising. The nuclear industry doesn't deliver new projects, it currently has product market fit living on tax money handouts. Presenting PowerPoints they hope to never have to flesh out the details on, since that would requrie them to admit to the costs. Just like mPower and NuScale were forced to do. The now shunned previous golden boys.
The question remains unanswered:
Poland. €100 billion. 2026. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?
> If new nuclear was cheap and quick, why are the recently proposed western subsidies tens of billions per reactor?
They aren't, and some guarantees are necessary, because VEE subsidies have dramatically distorted the markets. Even the cheapest producer cannot compete with subsidized overproduction that drives prices to zero or negative, with the government picking up the decidedly non-zero cost for just those producers that are causing the problem.
And you are projecting the reality of VEE subsidies onto nuclear.
I asked Google AI if subsidies for intermittent renewables in Germany will fall:
Total volatile renewable energy (VRE) subsidies in Germany are projected to rise significantly in the short-to-medium term (peaking around 2029 at over €22 billion), driven by falling wholesale electricity prices and legacy contract obligations.
In the long term, direct generation subsidies are legally structured to fall as older contracts expire, but the total public financial burden will likely remain high or shift into different mechanisms—such as grid infrastructure funding, battery storage incentives, and backup power plant strategies—to keep the structurally unprofitable intermittent energy system viable.
What are you even saying?
Renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world. They aren't needed anymore.
And now you've shifted the goalposts again. First, nuclear was supposedly cheap and quick. Now it needs enormous government guarantees because renewables have somehow "distorted" the market.
So which way is it? Is new nuclear cheap and competitive, or does it need taxpayers to absorb its financial risks?
You can't have it both ways.
Why should we waste our limited resources on ruinously expensive new nuclear that won't deliver meaningful decarbonization?
The question remains unanswered:
Poland. €100 billion. 2026. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?