3 ms·

Lower cost? Utterly laughable. Nuclear costs are notoriously high, always crazy multiples over budget, and then the operating and decommissioning costs are hidd

Lower cost? Utterly laughable. Nuclear costs are notoriously high, always crazy multiples over budget, and then the operating and decommissioning costs are hidden with budget and accounting tricks. But you won't notice because it's a 50 to 80 year process.

jahnu 10y ago
Sadly true. If it weren't for the insane costs I'd be a bigger fan of nuclear.
opo 10y ago
>...Nuclear costs are notoriously high, No, according to the US Energy Information Administration the levelized cost of nuclear has been comparable or less than coal (without the massive negative externalities of coal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- afterburner 10y ago
  False dichotomy, it's not nuclear vs coal (which is terrible anyways as you note) https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Also: "not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high." https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity/ https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...
  - opo 10y ago
    If you want baseload power, you can choose between coal, nuclear and natural gas. Natural gas has estimates that range between 72 and 113, so depending on which you choose it might well be cheaper or more expensive than nuclear power. Natural gas has a number of advantages over coal, but unfortunately it is now thought to be almost as bad as coal in terms of effects on climate change - this is a very bad negative externality that isn't priced into the cost. Your original point was that "Nuclear costs are notoriously high" - instead they are projected to be roughly comparable to other forms of baseload power. >..."not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste Maybe in other countries, but not the US. Every nuclear power plant in the United States is required, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of its licensing to set aside sufficient funds to decommission the plant when it reaches the end of its useful life. >...(The USA is an exception, because the cost of decommissioning is included in the price of electricity, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), Also there is a tax on electricity produced by nuclear power in the US to cover eventual long term waste disposal so it is priced into the cost - though ideally this high level waste will eventually be burned in a 4th gen reactor so the volume of waste will be a small fraction of what it would otherwise be.
novalis78 10y ago
Check out Thorconpower.com - obviously not the current deplorable state of affairs.
shitgoose 10y ago
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_SpotPriceSlider-3 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_Sp... scroll to the bottom image. Nuclear is the lowest cost along with hydro. If you want to argue against nuclear, you have to find another argument (which shouldn't be too hard).
- afterburner 10y ago
  No it's ok, the argument is still nuclear is too expensive. https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Note that nuclear isn't getting any better, while other sources are improving every year. Would you rather plonk down a massive capital payment for a very average nuclear plant for the next 50-80 years, or gradually add more and more efficient sources of energy over that same time period? Also: "not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high." https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity/ https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...
  - shitgoose 10y ago
    Thank you for the references.

jahnu 10y ago

Sadly true. If it weren't for the insane costs I'd be a bigger fan of nuclear.

opo 10y ago

>...Nuclear costs are notoriously high, No, according to the US Energy Information Administration the levelized cost of nuclear has been comparable or less than coal (without the massive negative externalities of coal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

afterburner 10y ago
False dichotomy, it's not nuclear vs coal (which is terrible anyways as you note) https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Also: "not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high." https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity/ https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...
- opo 10y ago
  If you want baseload power, you can choose between coal, nuclear and natural gas. Natural gas has estimates that range between 72 and 113, so depending on which you choose it might well be cheaper or more expensive than nuclear power. Natural gas has a number of advantages over coal, but unfortunately it is now thought to be almost as bad as coal in terms of effects on climate change - this is a very bad negative externality that isn't priced into the cost. Your original point was that "Nuclear costs are notoriously high" - instead they are projected to be roughly comparable to other forms of baseload power. >..."not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste Maybe in other countries, but not the US. Every nuclear power plant in the United States is required, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of its licensing to set aside sufficient funds to decommission the plant when it reaches the end of its useful life. >...(The USA is an exception, because the cost of decommissioning is included in the price of electricity, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), Also there is a tax on electricity produced by nuclear power in the US to cover eventual long term waste disposal so it is priced into the cost - though ideally this high level waste will eventually be burned in a 4th gen reactor so the volume of waste will be a small fraction of what it would otherwise be.

novalis78 10y ago

Check out Thorconpower.com - obviously not the current deplorable state of affairs.

shitgoose 10y ago

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_SpotPriceSlider-3 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_Sp... scroll to the bottom image. Nuclear is the lowest cost along with hydro. If you want to argue against nuclear, you have to find another argument (which shouldn't be too hard).

afterburner 10y ago
No it's ok, the argument is still nuclear is too expensive. https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Note that nuclear isn't getting any better, while other sources are improving every year. Would you rather plonk down a massive capital payment for a very average nuclear plant for the next 50-80 years, or gradually add more and more efficient sources of energy over that same time period? Also: "not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high." https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity/ https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...
- shitgoose 10y ago
  Thank you for the references.