2 ms·

>That makes a huge difference because most of the cost of atomic energy is in upfront construction. At 1.4% interest, about the minimum for infrastructure proje

>That makes a huge difference because most of the cost of atomic energy is in upfront construction. At 1.4% interest, about the minimum for infrastructure projects in places like China or Russia, nuclear power costs about $42 per megawatt-hour, far cheaper than coal and natural gas in many places. At a 10% rate, at the high end of the spectrum in developed economies, the cost of nuclear power shoots up to $97, more expensive than everything else. >“People say nuclear is expensive in the West, but they forget to say it’s expensive because of interest rates,” Morin said. one of the more interesting lines to me

runnerup 5y ago
> “People say nuclear is expensive in the West, but they forget to say it’s expensive because of interest rates,” Morin said. It's still a valid criticism if: - They could get those high interest rates from the return on other capital projects (nuclear less return than something else) - All externalities are included in costs We only have so much labor/material/energy available, and we do have to have some way of allocating them to the things with the most return. The big issue, obviously, is that tons and tons of negative externalities aren't priced in to most economic endeavors, that might make fission look a lot better. It might make it look a lot worse. Personally I'm hoping Elon/Mackenzie/Gates/Buffet/etc decide to throw a few dozen billion at fusion. I think its time truly is nigh. If you haven't watched this yet, it's definitely worth your time. Rather than being a super opinionated think-piece, it instead does a fantastic job walking the viewer through: - high level nuclear fusion engineering performance curves / the engineering design contraint space - the current state of nuclear fusion research (as of 5 years ago) and - breaks down why some new smaller reactors will likely begin construction soon and counter-intuitively, the most recently started ones may be completed before a fusion reactor that first broke ground 25 years ago and is still very much being actively built https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 Also worth noting that interesting things happen when you assume you can have "large" amounts of low-externality energy. Things like "we could use a ton of this energy to remove dispersed pollutants from the atmosphere/groundwater"... things which are very, very, very impractical if you have a limited amount of energy, or if your energy sources have their own negative externalities.
cinntaile 5y ago
The interest is higher because the risk is higher, the capital costs to build the thing are massive so a loan that defaults would be a big problem. The question is who supplies the loan too, are they government backed in Russia and China? If yes I can imagine that the rates would be quite a bit lower, this kind of state support is illegal in the EU afaik. Most plants will be run as LTOs, at least in western countries favourable to nuclear, and then the interest costs matter less than you think anyway. Then it's pretty much the cheapest source of energy.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
Many governments in the West can currently borrow at rates below 1% (which is lower than China), which means that nuclear plants construction can actually be financed at that very low interest rate in the West.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  I guess there is a significant “moral hazard” to this approach. This kind of contracts often ends with the contractor milking the state or, at least, treating deadlines, estimates and budgets as indicative-only. I’m confident that a “SpaceX approach” could drastically reduce its he cost of nuclear, though this is literally the opposite end of state-sponsored nuclear. I have high hopes for SMRs.

runnerup 5y ago

> “People say nuclear is expensive in the West, but they forget to say it’s expensive because of interest rates,” Morin said. It's still a valid criticism if: - They could get those high interest rates from the return on other capital projects (nuclear less return than something else) - All externalities are included in costs We only have so much labor/material/energy available, and we do have to have some way of allocating them to the things with the most return. The big issue, obviously, is that tons and tons of negative externalities aren't priced in to most economic endeavors, that might make fission look a lot better. It might make it look a lot worse. Personally I'm hoping Elon/Mackenzie/Gates/Buffet/etc decide to throw a few dozen billion at fusion. I think its time truly is nigh. If you haven't watched this yet, it's definitely worth your time. Rather than being a super opinionated think-piece, it instead does a fantastic job walking the viewer through: - high level nuclear fusion engineering performance curves / the engineering design contraint space - the current state of nuclear fusion research (as of 5 years ago) and - breaks down why some new smaller reactors will likely begin construction soon and counter-intuitively, the most recently started ones may be completed before a fusion reactor that first broke ground 25 years ago and is still very much being actively built https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4 Also worth noting that interesting things happen when you assume you can have "large" amounts of low-externality energy. Things like "we could use a ton of this energy to remove dispersed pollutants from the atmosphere/groundwater"... things which are very, very, very impractical if you have a limited amount of energy, or if your energy sources have their own negative externalities.

cinntaile 5y ago

The interest is higher because the risk is higher, the capital costs to build the thing are massive so a loan that defaults would be a big problem. The question is who supplies the loan too, are they government backed in Russia and China? If yes I can imagine that the rates would be quite a bit lower, this kind of state support is illegal in the EU afaik. Most plants will be run as LTOs, at least in western countries favourable to nuclear, and then the interest costs matter less than you think anyway. Then it's pretty much the cheapest source of energy.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

Many governments in the West can currently borrow at rates below 1% (which is lower than China), which means that nuclear plants construction can actually be financed at that very low interest rate in the West.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I guess there is a significant “moral hazard” to this approach. This kind of contracts often ends with the contractor milking the state or, at least, treating deadlines, estimates and budgets as indicative-only. I’m confident that a “SpaceX approach” could drastically reduce its he cost of nuclear, though this is literally the opposite end of state-sponsored nuclear. I have high hopes for SMRs.