New York to build one of first U.S. nuclear-power plants in generation

Policy context and New York’s nuclear history

• Commenters highlight the irony of New York proposing 1 GW of new nuclear after permanently closing ~2 GW of existing nuclear capacity, which increased fossil use and emissions.
• Past attempts like Shoreham are cited as cautionary tales: huge sunk costs, no operation due to local opposition.
• Some see corruption and political maneuvering around past closures and current nuclear-linked financial interests.

Market vs planning and technology choice

• Debate over whether the governor should pick nuclear explicitly or just solicit technology‑neutral bids with emissions and reliability constraints.
• Critics argue markets underprice externalities and underprovide long‑term reliability; others say heavy political steering toward nuclear is distortionary and risks locking in overruns.
• Several suggest NY should lean on regional coordination: Quebec hydro plus Atlantic wind and solar, with cross‑border trading.

Nuclear vs renewables economics

• Strong skepticism about nuclear’s cost: long build times, frequent multibillion‑dollar overruns (Vogtle cited repeatedly) and ratepayers ultimately footing the bill.
• Pro‑nuclear voices counter that high costs reflect lost supply chains and skills; they argue repeated AP1000 builds or similar could bring costs down via learning curves, as seen historically in Japan.
• Opponents respond that renewables plus storage already dominate new build economics and are scaling fast, unlike nuclear.

Cold climates, reliability, and residual fossil use

• Large subthread on whether renewables + storage can realistically electrify heating in cold, dark northern regions (Minnesota used as archetype).
• One side argues winter solar deficits, long cold snaps, and enormous storage requirements make nuclear (or continued gas) necessary; others say regional interconnection plus overbuilt renewables and limited gas peakers are cheaper and sufficient.
• Some argue chasing the last 5–10% of decarbonization (e.g., in extreme climates) with nuclear is lower priority than rapidly deploying renewables elsewhere.

Technology options and designs

• Discussion of reactor types: AP1000, EPR, VVER, SMRs (e.g., BWRX‑300), and more speculative molten‑salt/thorium or Gen‑IV designs.
• General agreement that exotic designs are not ready for near‑term deployment; opinions split on whether to standardize on proven Gen‑III designs first or wait for advanced reactors.

Risk, safety, and externalities

• Some stress that nuclear risks are underpriced (limited liability, implicit state backstops) and full insurance would make it far costlier.
• Others argue nuclear’s overall ecological and health impact compares favorably to coal, gas, and large hydro, and that public fears are disproportionate to actual incident history.