5 ms·

I think this just goes to show how ridiculously expensive Nuclear is to build in the first place, even before the ongoing costs, waste disposal, decommissioning

I think this just goes to show how ridiculously expensive Nuclear is to build in the first place, even before the ongoing costs, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc. The deal took over a decade and not only includes upfront costs but also British bill payers giving a "generous" subsidy to French energy for 35 years. Providing 7% of the UK's energy needs is far from nothing but it comes at a very high cost. Bringing all the costs in-house might lessen the bill in the long run (if the UK were to be building a lot) but would require a lot of investment in relearning how to build the plants.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
Nuclear is not more expensive that, say, offshore wind. [0] > The deal took over a decade and not only includes upfront costs but also British bill payers giving a "generous" subsidy to French energy for 35 years. Not so. The deal is only to guarantee the price of electricity sold, which had to be done to remove financial uncertainty over decades in order for EDF/Chinese partner to agree to finance it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
- boyband6666 7y ago
  Except the strike price used is far above the current market rate, with no real indication that it would reach that level naturally. Describing it as a generous subsidy might not be strictly accurate, but isn't far from the truth. If the strike price used were the current market rate (or maybe a bit lower), that would seem reasonable to allow a company to have the required long term security knowing the bottom won't fall out from under them, but an implicit subsidy does not seem like a good strategy.
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    As said, it was about removing risk and ensuring a return that made the investment worthwhile. That's just a direct consequence of the government policy of not financing the construction and operation with public money. The alternative was to directly spend public money, which makes the complaint about this guaranteed price being a public subsidy rather moot.
    - boyband6666 7y ago
      ... or to accept that the plans were not economically viable as they stand. I'm an economist not a nuclear physicist, but the signal the market is sending is that these plans are not what is needed. Find a way to make the electricity cheaper, or accept the demand isn't there.
mrpopo 7y ago
> I think this just goes to show how ridiculously expensive Nuclear is to build in the first place, even before the ongoing costs, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc. All proponents of renewables bringing the topic of nuclear price fail to make the point that they are comparing apples and oranges. One is reliable, the other is not. To make a fair comparison, you have to include either - the price of added storage, for which the latest estimates I've seen show would put the price at 5-30x the original price per kWh, including manufacturing, power losses, renewal, etc. or - the price of making the electricity less reliable for the industry. It's possible, and seriously considered in 100% renewables scenarios, to switch the electricity consumption for industries at specific times (e.g. the factories run at peak solar or peak wind only). And give incentives for individuals (variable kWh price) to try to pilot their consumption around the production. Problem: this might ruin the competitivity of the industry. The costs associated are much harder to estimate. TL;DR even if it comes at a very high costs, nuclear would still be cheaper than renewables + adequate storage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

Nuclear is not more expensive that, say, offshore wind. [0] > The deal took over a decade and not only includes upfront costs but also British bill payers giving a "generous" subsidy to French energy for 35 years. Not so. The deal is only to guarantee the price of electricity sold, which had to be done to remove financial uncertainty over decades in order for EDF/Chinese partner to agree to finance it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

boyband6666 7y ago
Except the strike price used is far above the current market rate, with no real indication that it would reach that level naturally. Describing it as a generous subsidy might not be strictly accurate, but isn't far from the truth. If the strike price used were the current market rate (or maybe a bit lower), that would seem reasonable to allow a company to have the required long term security knowing the bottom won't fall out from under them, but an implicit subsidy does not seem like a good strategy.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  As said, it was about removing risk and ensuring a return that made the investment worthwhile. That's just a direct consequence of the government policy of not financing the construction and operation with public money. The alternative was to directly spend public money, which makes the complaint about this guaranteed price being a public subsidy rather moot.
  - boyband6666 7y ago
    ... or to accept that the plans were not economically viable as they stand. I'm an economist not a nuclear physicist, but the signal the market is sending is that these plans are not what is needed. Find a way to make the electricity cheaper, or accept the demand isn't there.

mrpopo 7y ago

> I think this just goes to show how ridiculously expensive Nuclear is to build in the first place, even before the ongoing costs, waste disposal, decommissioning, etc. All proponents of renewables bringing the topic of nuclear price fail to make the point that they are comparing apples and oranges. One is reliable, the other is not. To make a fair comparison, you have to include either - the price of added storage, for which the latest estimates I've seen show would put the price at 5-30x the original price per kWh, including manufacturing, power losses, renewal, etc. or - the price of making the electricity less reliable for the industry. It's possible, and seriously considered in 100% renewables scenarios, to switch the electricity consumption for industries at specific times (e.g. the factories run at peak solar or peak wind only). And give incentives for individuals (variable kWh price) to try to pilot their consumption around the production. Problem: this might ruin the competitivity of the industry. The costs associated are much harder to estimate. TL;DR even if it comes at a very high costs, nuclear would still be cheaper than renewables + adequate storage.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]