5 ms·
39 billion of 1.28 trillion is 3%. Does that mean they only save 3% when betting on falling prices for renewables? For four decades? Doesn't sound much like a f
by aloer 8y ago
39 billion of 1.28 trillion is 3%. Does that mean they only save 3% when betting on falling prices for renewables? For four decades? Doesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- philipkglass 8y agoDoesn't sound much like a financial advantage compared to the (presumably) more predictable and stable prices for nuclear. Reactors that are already built and in good operating order provide very predictable electricity at low-moderate costs. Building new reactors is much less predictable. France's latest reactor design, the EPR, is many years behind schedule and many billions over budget at both French and Finnish projects to build the new reactor. It was even years late when built in China, where presumably no lawsuits/activists/excessive safety regulations were ever allowed to get in the way.
- pfdietz 8y agoAlso, we're now in an environment where power technology is changing rapidly, due to the rapid decline in cost of renewables. In that environment, any long term investment is suspect. This is one reason combustion turbines held on: they have lower capital cost, so if they're made obsolete in a couple of decades it's not as big a hit.
- dv_dt 8y agoThe only thing predictable about nuclear construction prices and schedules is that they tend to go over by 2x-4x or higher (but they tend to get canceled at that point). The 3% difference is a reasonable criticism, meaning that they're basically at parity cost wise in this comparison. But then you really have to add the 1000+ year waste storage costs - which even if not ignored, are ridiculous to estimate costs for.
- tomatotomato37 8y agoIs that because its a nuclear project, or because its a large civic project? With everything from the California High-Speed Rail project to New York's public transit system to the F35 fighter jet I don't really think the US is going to be getting any major projects done again without absolutely demolishing anything resembling a budget, at least in the near future.
- dv_dt 8y agoI don't think you can separate nuclear projects from being large civic projects, but I agree with you on something going massively wrong with US large project capability. IMHO, it's the rise of a specialist-in-managment-only class of executive in the US more than other nations.
- fmajid 8y agoOnly in the US. France has well-managed public works and they use standardized reactor designs for economies of scale. That doesn’t prevent snafus on new designs like the Superphenix fast breeder reactor, but nothing like the US’ absurd cost disease.
- Octoth0rpe 8y agoSuperphenix isn't exactly the only example of a complete cost fuckup in france: http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-revises-schedule,-costs-of-Flamanville-EPR http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-revises-schedule,... Short version: was originally expected to cost 3.3 bil euro, is now at 10.9 bil euro and climbing.
- adrianN 8y agoAt some point during the next 1000+ years we'll probably build some breeder reactors to use all that "waste" as fuel.
- pfdietz 8y agoWhy? More likely, nuclear will just become museumware.
- mikemotherwell 8y agoDoes that account for the space available in India? How much land would it take to provide power for 1.3 billion people? I think the idea that renewables will be feasible in a country India's size with India's population, while preserving much if any natural space seems, at best, optimistic. By all means Australia - the 6th largest country by area in the world with a population of 25ish million has the space. But India? Sure it is the 7th largest country by area, but it is less than half Australia's size, with 50-70 times the population (India's population estimates are tricky). The scariest part of these debates is that the solution is likely energy dependence, as in countries with space - and day more sunshine - sell electricity to those without it. I don't think ANYONE likes that idea, but I can't see any way that it is feasible worldwide while maintaining each country's energy independence.