3 ms·
The other capital and operational costs stay the same even if you just discard the production you don't need, so just focusing on fuel costs is not very helpful
by cinntaile 5y ago
The other capital and operational costs stay the same even if you just discard the production you don't need, so just focusing on fuel costs is not very helpful to determine if it's economical to do that.
- bfdm 5y agoFinancial profitability is not a requirement for infrastructure projects. If it is the best way to supply power in the most sustainable way, it should be subsidized by governments to make it happen. If you want to pretend it balances on paper add eco taxes elsewhere, but again thats not necessary.
- cinntaile 5y agoIt is not that easy, we have privatised the energy markets so there are rules that need to be followed. Ignoring cost is not something governments can or should do, there are many more factors that need to be taken into account and this combination is what should be optimized for instead of just one factor. The most sustainable way to supply power is to reduce the need to supply it in the first place, insulation and other energy saving measures are usually subsidized already.
- amluto 5y agoMy point is that, once you’ve paid the capital cost for, say, 1GW of nuclear, the marginal cost of energy produced is low and you can adjust the production on fairly short timescales. I’m not saying you should, but the calculation is different from a natural gas or coal plant in which the marginal cost of energy is much higher.
- cinntaile 5y agoThe OpEx is coal < nuclear < gas [0]. This is for regular nuclear plants, SMRs will have higher OpEx. Not sure how they'll fare against gas exactly. The SMR handbook has some estimations I believe, but I don't recall the numbers. [0] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/530 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/530