3 ms·
What do you think nuclear costs? I think you are probably unintentionally operating on a fallacy in this article, which is using decade-old costs. Renewables an
by lukeschlather 5y ago
What do you think nuclear costs? I think you are probably unintentionally operating on a fallacy in this article, which is using decade-old costs. Renewables and storage have fallen in price massively. Nuclear was a great idea a decade ago but when you look at the costs there's no reason anymore. It's just too expensive.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoNot really true when you consider systems costs [1]. The way Korea and China and Russia are making nuclear plants right now, nuclear still has a huge role to play. If you look at the current boondoggles only then I could see why you'd think what you say. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006
- Manuel_D 5y agoNuclear's cost is substantially less when built at scale. During serial production during the 1960s and 70s nuclear power costs averaged about $1B per GW of capacity[1]. And with a capacity factor of near 100% versus ~30% for renewables other than hydro this is very cost competitive. Furthermore the question of storage to make renewables feasible is typically met with assumptions that batteries will scale by a factor of 100, or that a breakthrough will be made in another form of storage like liquid metal batteries, hydrogen, compressed air, or something else. None of these have been deployed at scale. 1. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-Costs-of-Global-Nuclear-Reactors-in-USD2010-Costs-are-adjusted-by_fig1_292964046 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C...
- andromeduck 5y agoRenewables are only cheap because they can freeload on the variability of coal and gas. Start pricing carbon and QoS and things will change quickly.