4 ms·

Nuclear is cheap if governments back the loans (all the cost is up front so a 2% or 5% interest rate has a massive impact on final project cost), and if the pro

Nuclear is cheap if governments back the loans (all the cost is up front so a 2% or 5% interest rate has a massive impact on final project cost), and if the projects can be delivered consistently on budget (conspicuously not the case for any of the most recent designs with passive safety features).

jokoon 8y ago
Not cheap, but probably still cheaper than renewables, per kWh. Also the problem with renewables is the power output curve, which are unpredictable because of sunlight and wind fluctuations, which will be compensated with coal/gas energy. Less of a problem with nuclear.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Nuclear is much more expensive per kWh than renewables. The intermittency of renewables renders nuclear unable to coexist with them. Nuclear is inflexible and wants to be able to sell all the time, but can't do that when renewables crash the price on the power market. You might say this is a renewable problem, but it's just as much a problem of nuclear being too inflexible to adapt to a dynamic power market.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  In the UK solar and onshore wind are about 5p/kWh, offshore wind about 7p/kWh, nuclear about 7-10p/kWh, depending on generation of reactor and scale of order, so more expensive per kWh. But you’re right that clearly once you include the cost of grid integration, taking wind or solar above 30-50% will incur significantly higher costs. I think in the UK it’s about 20p/kWh now for solar or wind with four hours of battery firming for example. But the difference is those costs are continually falling each year, whereas nuclear has stayed the same or risen. I would still renew nuclear personally, to provide maybe 15-25% of the grid, but it’s not enormously obvious. I think by the time the nuclear stations are built renewables will probably be cheaper, I just favour it as a hedge. Although in the UK we’ve had some nuclear development companies pull out and ask for more money even after agreeing to build at 10p/kWh, so that may not work out in reality.

jokoon 8y ago

Not cheap, but probably still cheaper than renewables, per kWh. Also the problem with renewables is the power output curve, which are unpredictable because of sunlight and wind fluctuations, which will be compensated with coal/gas energy. Less of a problem with nuclear.

pfdietz 8y ago
Nuclear is much more expensive per kWh than renewables. The intermittency of renewables renders nuclear unable to coexist with them. Nuclear is inflexible and wants to be able to sell all the time, but can't do that when renewables crash the price on the power market. You might say this is a renewable problem, but it's just as much a problem of nuclear being too inflexible to adapt to a dynamic power market.
Brakenshire 8y ago
In the UK solar and onshore wind are about 5p/kWh, offshore wind about 7p/kWh, nuclear about 7-10p/kWh, depending on generation of reactor and scale of order, so more expensive per kWh. But you’re right that clearly once you include the cost of grid integration, taking wind or solar above 30-50% will incur significantly higher costs. I think in the UK it’s about 20p/kWh now for solar or wind with four hours of battery firming for example. But the difference is those costs are continually falling each year, whereas nuclear has stayed the same or risen. I would still renew nuclear personally, to provide maybe 15-25% of the grid, but it’s not enormously obvious. I think by the time the nuclear stations are built renewables will probably be cheaper, I just favour it as a hedge. Although in the UK we’ve had some nuclear development companies pull out and ask for more money even after agreeing to build at 10p/kWh, so that may not work out in reality.