4 ms·

Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s absolutely low risk because the electricity production can be sold years in advance if you want. Nuclear electricity has the

Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s absolutely low risk because the electricity production can be sold years in advance if you want. Nuclear electricity has the highest of all capacity factors and is therefore almost 100% planable, so there is virtually zero risk.

omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
Very little in electricity generation has virtually zero risk. Nuclear tends to have a higher capacity factor than most other baseload generators, but it also has unplanned outages. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45176 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45176 The biggest risk I've seen is that unanticipated events (including financial events) will completely shutter a unit, like San Onofre and Indian Point 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Shutdown,_2012_and_closure,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...
jhgb 5y ago
If your average cost overrun is around 100%, then it absolutely is financially risky. And selling years in advance is not just possible but necessary for nuclear plants - people would never agree on such prices 10-20 years from now so the have to be locked in even as the plant is being built.
splistud 5y ago
By all means go to current financial markets and ask for huge loans in this low-interest-rate high-inflation market. It isn't even about risk (though risks caused by regulation/government oversight are manifold). It's about return, or the lack thereof.
natmaka 5y ago
Some real costs are hardly predictable: hot waste long-term management, decommission (see the UK case) and especially any boo-boo (Fukushima cleanup costs will be in the ~500bn USD range) do threaten the financial model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/uks-nuclear-sites-costing-taxpayers-astronomical-sums-say-mps https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/uks-nucl...

omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago

Very little in electricity generation has virtually zero risk. Nuclear tends to have a higher capacity factor than most other baseload generators, but it also has unplanned outages. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45176 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45176 The biggest risk I've seen is that unanticipated events (including financial events) will completely shutter a unit, like San Onofre and Indian Point 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Shutdown,_2012_and_closure,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

jhgb 5y ago

If your average cost overrun is around 100%, then it absolutely is financially risky. And selling years in advance is not just possible but necessary for nuclear plants - people would never agree on such prices 10-20 years from now so the have to be locked in even as the plant is being built.

splistud 5y ago

By all means go to current financial markets and ask for huge loans in this low-interest-rate high-inflation market. It isn't even about risk (though risks caused by regulation/government oversight are manifold). It's about return, or the lack thereof.

natmaka 5y ago

Some real costs are hardly predictable: hot waste long-term management, decommission (see the UK case) and especially any boo-boo (Fukushima cleanup costs will be in the ~500bn USD range) do threaten the financial model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/uks-nuclear-sites-costing-taxpayers-astronomical-sums-say-mps https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/uks-nucl...