freediver wrote on Oct 10
th, 2026 at 12:54pm:
Yes, firmed renewables (wind and solar combined with storage and transmission) are significantly cheaper than nuclear power according to major economic and engineering studies.
And when I do Google AI, it says -
"levelised full cost of electricity - are renewables cheaper than nuclear"
"Yes, firmed renewable energy (such as solar and wind paired with storage and transmission) is significantly cheaper than nuclear power on a levelised full cost of electricity (LCOE) basis" I quried why Google said LCOE, and they admitted their error.
Me: "Your anser sasys levelised foull cost of electricity and then says in brackets LCOE which is not full cost"
Google: "You are entirely correct, and I apologize for that conflation. LCOE (Levelised Cost of Energy) is not the full system cost; it only measures the "at the generator fence" cost of producing a single megawatt-hour of electricity."
G: "To account for the full costs of integrating weather-dependent renewables into the grid, economists and institutions use a different metric: LCOCE (Levelised Full Cost of Electricity) or System LCOE.
"When expert reports like Australia's CSIRO GenCost model the Levelised Full Cost (incorporating storage and transmission integration), they use a framework called "Firmed LCOE.""
I then responded ""Firmed LCOE" is also not the the full cost"
G: "You are completely correct, and I appreciate you pushing back on this. "Firmed LCOE" is still an incomplete metric and does not represent the true full system cost of a real-world electricity grid.
While firmed LCOE attempts to patch the flaws of standard LCOE by bundling a standardized amount of storage (like a 4-hour battery) and a fixed share of transmission, it is still a project-level calculation. It fails to capture the complex, compounding costs that occur when you try to run an entire society on a given energy "
Energy economists point out that firmed LCOE routinely leaves out four massive system-wide expenses:
1. The "Dunkelflaute" and Exponential Overbuilding
Firmed LCOE models usually assume a routine, daily cycle of storage (charging by day, discharging at night). They do not account for a Dunkelflaute—extended periods of consecutive days or weeks with near-zero wind and solar output.
To guarantee reliability through these weather events without fossil-fuel backup, a renewable grid requires either massive multi-day seasonal storage or extreme overbuilding of wind and solar capacity. This extra capacity sits idle and wasted (curtailed) most of the year, which dramatically spikes the real cost per megawatt-hour delivered.
2. Inertia and Ancillary Services (Grid Stability)
Large spinning turbines in nuclear, coal, and hydro plants inherently provide synchronous inertia, which keeps the grid’s frequency stable at 50Hz or 60Hz. Wind and solar do not provide this naturally. Replacing mechanical inertia requires complex systems like synchronous condensers or specialized fast-frequency battery software, costs that are heavily externalized and omitted from firmed LCOE.
3. Local Distribution Grid Upgrades
Firmed LCOE accounts for transmission lines (the big towers moving power across regions) but largely ignores distribution networks (the power lines on your street). Managing two-way power flows from rooftop solar, local batteries, and electric vehicle charging requires multi-billion-dollar upgrades to local substations and street-level infrastructure.
4. True System Metrics: LFSCOE and SLOE
To capture the actual macroeconomic reality, researchers use macro-system models like System Levelised Cost of Electricity (SLOE) or Levelised Full System Costs of Electricity (LFSCOE).
• These model an entire region's grid hour-by-hour over decades.
• Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective, pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially.
• This is where dispatchable, high-capacity factors like nuclear look more competitive on a true full-system basis, because they eliminate the exponential curve of backup infrastructure.
Thank you for clarifying this—using "full cost" to describe firmed LCOE was technically inaccurate."
Source :Google AI
You're welcome.
That's a lot of bloviating. But it still says that renewables are cheaper than nuclear. For example from your own quote:
Studies using these metrics show that while a grid with mostly renewables (e.g., 80-90%) is highly cost-effective.
Why does the remaining 10-20% even need to be nuclear? Why not gas or hydro? Our existing coal fired power stations won't reach the end of their life for several decades. And even if 10 to 20% is nuclear, that is still not saying that nuclear is cheaper.
pushing for a 100% weather-dependent grid causes system costs to skyrocket exponentially
No-one is doing that Lee. This is merely the sort of idiotic assumption you need to make in order to make nuclear look not quite so terrible as an option. You keep being told that renewables are cheaper than nuclear, even by your own evidence, but you still desperately seek some way to convince yourself of the opposite.
Forum
Pages: 
One Nation Would Lift The Ban On Nuclear Power (Read 7048 times)
