4 ms·

That's really not justifiable unless you assume nuclear construction costs in the out-of-practice west apply everywhere, always and forever. To think this is to

That's really not justifiable unless you assume nuclear construction costs in the out-of-practice west apply everywhere, always and forever. To think this is to completely disregard the amazing nuclear builds in China (see Hualong One), the UAE (3 APR-1400s build by the Koreans), Russia (lots of VVERs), etc. At the costs they're delivering, current low-carbon 24/7 nuclear is a rock-solid choice. Solar photovoltaic and wind are much older technologies than nuclear, to be fair on the "modern" quip.

Maursault 6y ago
> Solar photovoltaic and wind are much older technologies than nuclear, to be fair on the "modern" quip. To be completely fair, the development of nuclear power took governments and would have been impossible otherwise. Solar and wind, not so much. The problem with nuclear is only cost, not NIMBY and before it is said so, it certainly is not the regulations jacking the cost of nuclear so high. If nuclear power was economically viable, you could not beat off the investors. The trouble is, the investors don't want to pay the $15B or so it costs to build a single plant, nor the cost of decommissioning, nor for the cost of storing the waste effectively forever, plus the cost of securing that, and certainly not for any accidents, as improbable as they may be. They just want to sell electricity and profit, and leave the government with the responsibility of paying for all the things. And really to be fair, the cost of R&D for nuclear power has never been paid back. Pay the US and UK taxpayers back for the R&D and you can have all the nuclear power plants you want.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  The German government spent like $500B buying expensive solar PV which was instrumental in allowing the manufacturing efficiencies to reduce prices to what we see today in solar. Similarly, we know that serial construction of standard nuclear is cost effective from the examples cited.
  - Maursault 6y ago
    Germany spent closer to $26B on Solar since 2016. Meanwhile, the US alone expects to spend $36B on storing nuclear waste. Half of the first generation of nuclear power plants being constructed were abandoned because of insurmountable costs. If nuclear power was economically viable, no one could stop it. But investors do not want to pay for plant construction without massive subsidies that are now absent, nor for the decommissioning, nor for the storage of spent fuel; they just want to sell electricity and keep the money without any overhead. Where are the private investors! Bring them on and get it done! They're simply not interested. "Electricity too cheap to meter" never materialized. Renewable energy is a far better return, and today, nuclear power can not compete against renewables. Consider that if a tiny portion of the investment in R&D for nuclear energy had instead been invested in renewables, nuclear energy would have died in the 1960's.

Maursault 6y ago

> Solar photovoltaic and wind are much older technologies than nuclear, to be fair on the "modern" quip. To be completely fair, the development of nuclear power took governments and would have been impossible otherwise. Solar and wind, not so much. The problem with nuclear is only cost, not NIMBY and before it is said so, it certainly is not the regulations jacking the cost of nuclear so high. If nuclear power was economically viable, you could not beat off the investors. The trouble is, the investors don't want to pay the $15B or so it costs to build a single plant, nor the cost of decommissioning, nor for the cost of storing the waste effectively forever, plus the cost of securing that, and certainly not for any accidents, as improbable as they may be. They just want to sell electricity and profit, and leave the government with the responsibility of paying for all the things. And really to be fair, the cost of R&D for nuclear power has never been paid back. Pay the US and UK taxpayers back for the R&D and you can have all the nuclear power plants you want.

acidburnNSA 6y ago
The German government spent like $500B buying expensive solar PV which was instrumental in allowing the manufacturing efficiencies to reduce prices to what we see today in solar. Similarly, we know that serial construction of standard nuclear is cost effective from the examples cited.
- Maursault 6y ago
  Germany spent closer to $26B on Solar since 2016. Meanwhile, the US alone expects to spend $36B on storing nuclear waste. Half of the first generation of nuclear power plants being constructed were abandoned because of insurmountable costs. If nuclear power was economically viable, no one could stop it. But investors do not want to pay for plant construction without massive subsidies that are now absent, nor for the decommissioning, nor for the storage of spent fuel; they just want to sell electricity and keep the money without any overhead. Where are the private investors! Bring them on and get it done! They're simply not interested. "Electricity too cheap to meter" never materialized. Renewable energy is a far better return, and today, nuclear power can not compete against renewables. Consider that if a tiny portion of the investment in R&D for nuclear energy had instead been invested in renewables, nuclear energy would have died in the 1960's.