4 ms·

I work in energy research for a large financial institution and would love to see the data you're drawing this conclusion from.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
That even with the current plants in operation for over 40 years, surely having their capital costs paid for, they can't compete against the economics of wind and natural gas (which is pushing current plants into early decommissioning).
- enjo 10y ago
  They can't compete politically with those alternatives at least.
Zigurd 10y ago
Then maybe you could explain why customers should pay a dime for failed, uneconomical nuclear projects: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rates-because-of-nuclear-plants.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rate...
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  Note that the article itself says "either canceled or blocked from operating". You can't support politicking that locks nuclear plant development in endless NIMBY battles and then blame nuclear itself for it.
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    You can't blame the tech, but the companies that rely on it should have better marketing.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    It's not NIMBY unless you count not tolerating shoddy construction as NIMBY: "Several more plants may run into difficulty when virtually complete because of questions of the quality of construction." It's not a marketing problem. It's that the plants are too complex to be properly built and operated.
mikeyouse 10y ago
Maintaining old plants may be economical but even that is fraught with risk (e.g. the RSG debacle at San Onofre) but looking at the few new nuclear projects under way makes it seem highly unlikely that they'll ever be worthwhile. The Vogtle upgrade has been underway for 6 years and is already 3 years behind schedule, it will have taken over a decade by the time it sells it's first watt to the grid. The total investment over that time will be something like $20 billion. I can't imagine a scenario in which tying up $20B in capital for a decade to produce 2.2GW of power makes any financial sense at all. With the EPA cost estimate of $1,000/KW for a natural gas plant, you could literally build 20GW of natural gas capacity and probably save 5 years in construction time. Wind is ~2x more expensive per installed MW, so build 10GW of wind capacity, even with their shitty 30% capacity factors you come out ahead of the Vogtle project. Hopefully the modular reactors come with much better economics but large scale nuclear is dead for a reason.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

That even with the current plants in operation for over 40 years, surely having their capital costs paid for, they can't compete against the economics of wind and natural gas (which is pushing current plants into early decommissioning).

enjo 10y ago
They can't compete politically with those alternatives at least.

Zigurd 10y ago

Then maybe you could explain why customers should pay a dime for failed, uneconomical nuclear projects: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rates-because-of-nuclear-plants.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/26/us/millions-face-high-rate...

johncolanduoni 10y ago
Note that the article itself says "either canceled or blocked from operating". You can't support politicking that locks nuclear plant development in endless NIMBY battles and then blame nuclear itself for it.
- rbanffy 10y ago
  You can't blame the tech, but the companies that rely on it should have better marketing.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  It's not NIMBY unless you count not tolerating shoddy construction as NIMBY: "Several more plants may run into difficulty when virtually complete because of questions of the quality of construction." It's not a marketing problem. It's that the plants are too complex to be properly built and operated.

mikeyouse 10y ago

Maintaining old plants may be economical but even that is fraught with risk (e.g. the RSG debacle at San Onofre) but looking at the few new nuclear projects under way makes it seem highly unlikely that they'll ever be worthwhile. The Vogtle upgrade has been underway for 6 years and is already 3 years behind schedule, it will have taken over a decade by the time it sells it's first watt to the grid. The total investment over that time will be something like $20 billion. I can't imagine a scenario in which tying up $20B in capital for a decade to produce 2.2GW of power makes any financial sense at all. With the EPA cost estimate of $1,000/KW for a natural gas plant, you could literally build 20GW of natural gas capacity and probably save 5 years in construction time. Wind is ~2x more expensive per installed MW, so build 10GW of wind capacity, even with their shitty 30% capacity factors you come out ahead of the Vogtle project. Hopefully the modular reactors come with much better economics but large scale nuclear is dead for a reason.