7 ms·

nuclear vs wind energy maybe. just look at it. which do you think is 30x cheaper? the more interesting question is why the oil and water-energy exporter Norway

by rurban 5y ago

nuclear vs wind energy maybe. just look at it. which do you think is 30x cheaper? the more interesting question is why the oil and water-energy exporter Norway got so much more expensive domestic energy prizes since it joined the European energy market.

natmaka 5y ago
When it comes to production costs renewables (wind included) are cheaper than nuclear: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 The gap is growing. When it comes to complete costs of reliable gridpower an adequately spread-out mix of renewables may also be cheaper. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/grep https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...
reacharavindh 5y ago
I know it is tiring to see this comment. But, the cost of nuclear power quoted everywhere does NOT include the cost of safely handling the waste from it for hundreds of years right? Until it is included it is like Saudi Arabia claiming that oil is the best thing in the world because it costs €1/barrel because they only need to factor the cost of digging for it.
- adhesive_wombat 5y ago
  Nuclear power strike prices usually do include much of the long term costs, and money has to be committed into a trust (or some similar scheme) as part of getting approval in the first place. And it would be more like Saudi Arabia claiming that oil only costs $100 per barrel because they don't need to pay for pollution remediation, healthcare costs, spill cleanup and their share of all climate change effects from the time they sold the oil until the time that oil's effects have been removed from the system. Which they don't.
  - renox 5y ago
    > Nuclear power strike prices usually do include much of the long term costs In theory yes, but given that they aren't able to predict correctly the cost of building a nuclear station, I don't see why we should trust them on predicting the real cost of dismantling them..
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      It's very easy to accurately predict the building costs of a nuclear reactor. The overruns you're talking about come from politicians showing up halfway through the project and changing the rules to show their voters that they are involved
      - renox 5y ago
        In France the new nuclear reactors have been plagued by hardware issue, delays.. So no, it isn't 'easy' to predict the building costs, it's easy only when you're replicating an already existing reactor and only if it was built recently!
        JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        > In France the new nuclear reactors have been plagued by hardware issue, delays That's odd, can you show me some evidence of that?
        natmaka 5y ago
        The new type of nuclear reactor is the "EPR". The first project, in Finland (Olkiluoto-3) was a disaster: massive overcosts, 12 years late, customer lost, penalties paid, builder (Areva) saved thanks to public money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... The second project, in France (Flamanville-3) is an ongoing disaster: massive overcosts (from 3,3 to 19,4 billions €, and counting), aleady 10 years late and counting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... The third project, in China (Taishan-1 & -2) was officially 5 years late and 60% overcosts (and very probably not break even for the builder). After 1 year one of the 2 reactors was stopped mid-2021 after an incident. The fourth project, in the U.-K. (Hinkley-Point C), started in 2018 and already announced overcosts and late delivery. Old reactors: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-chinon-3-reactor-offline-tests-after-pipe-corrosion-detected-2022-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-chinon-3-rea... Decommission costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18686703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18686703
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Digging miles into the ground with a 4 story mechanized oil rig is much more complicated than putting some dirt into a barrel and walking past it with a Geiger counter monthly, buddy
Manuel_D 5y ago
Does that cost figure for wind include storage? If not, then you're comparing apples to oranges.
IMTDb 5y ago
How much does renewable energy cost on a windless November night, when I need to heat my home and cook my dinner ?
- pydry 5y ago
  A bit less than nuclear energy if there's a good mix of pumped storage + wind + solar. It all gets built way quicker too. No 15 year lead times setting up solar panel farms can be done in 6 months. Pumped storage projects can be done in a couple of years. Each small scale quick and cheap project takes a chunk out of our reliance on natgas. People way underestimate just how fantastically expensive nuclear power is and how unviable it is without lavish subsidies that other renewables dont need. It'll keep getting built in countries with nuclear arsenals though coz it can share some of those costs. Thats ultimately why we get barraged with so much pro nuclear power propaganda. It aint about reliability, it's about the military industrial complex foisting costs off on to rate and taxpayers. Obviously when Iran does this we are made aware of how awful and wrong it is but it's greenwashed under the carpet 100% of the rest of the time.

by rurban 5y ago

natmaka 5y ago

When it comes to production costs renewables (wind included) are cheaper than nuclear: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 The gap is growing. When it comes to complete costs of reliable gridpower an adequately spread-out mix of renewables may also be cheaper. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/grep https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

reacharavindh 5y ago

I know it is tiring to see this comment. But, the cost of nuclear power quoted everywhere does NOT include the cost of safely handling the waste from it for hundreds of years right? Until it is included it is like Saudi Arabia claiming that oil is the best thing in the world because it costs €1/barrel because they only need to factor the cost of digging for it.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Nuclear power strike prices usually do include much of the long term costs, and money has to be committed into a trust (or some similar scheme) as part of getting approval in the first place. And it would be more like Saudi Arabia claiming that oil only costs $100 per barrel because they don't need to pay for pollution remediation, healthcare costs, spill cleanup and their share of all climate change effects from the time they sold the oil until the time that oil's effects have been removed from the system. Which they don't.
- renox 5y ago
  > Nuclear power strike prices usually do include much of the long term costs In theory yes, but given that they aren't able to predict correctly the cost of building a nuclear station, I don't see why we should trust them on predicting the real cost of dismantling them..
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    It's very easy to accurately predict the building costs of a nuclear reactor. The overruns you're talking about come from politicians showing up halfway through the project and changing the rules to show their voters that they are involved
    - renox 5y ago
      In France the new nuclear reactors have been plagued by hardware issue, delays.. So no, it isn't 'easy' to predict the building costs, it's easy only when you're replicating an already existing reactor and only if it was built recently!
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        > In France the new nuclear reactors have been plagued by hardware issue, delays That's odd, can you show me some evidence of that?
        natmaka 5y ago
        The new type of nuclear reactor is the "EPR". The first project, in Finland (Olkiluoto-3) was a disaster: massive overcosts, 12 years late, customer lost, penalties paid, builder (Areva) saved thanks to public money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Construction_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... The second project, in France (Flamanville-3) is an ongoing disaster: massive overcosts (from 3,3 to 19,4 billions €, and counting), aleady 10 years late and counting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... The third project, in China (Taishan-1 & -2) was officially 5 years late and 60% overcosts (and very probably not break even for the builder). After 1 year one of the 2 reactors was stopped mid-2021 after an incident. The fourth project, in the U.-K. (Hinkley-Point C), started in 2018 and already announced overcosts and late delivery. Old reactors: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-chinon-3-reactor-offline-tests-after-pipe-corrosion-detected-2022-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-chinon-3-rea... Decommission costs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18686703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18686703
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Digging miles into the ground with a 4 story mechanized oil rig is much more complicated than putting some dirt into a barrel and walking past it with a Geiger counter monthly, buddy

Manuel_D 5y ago

Does that cost figure for wind include storage? If not, then you're comparing apples to oranges.

IMTDb 5y ago

How much does renewable energy cost on a windless November night, when I need to heat my home and cook my dinner ?

pydry 5y ago
A bit less than nuclear energy if there's a good mix of pumped storage + wind + solar. It all gets built way quicker too. No 15 year lead times setting up solar panel farms can be done in 6 months. Pumped storage projects can be done in a couple of years. Each small scale quick and cheap project takes a chunk out of our reliance on natgas. People way underestimate just how fantastically expensive nuclear power is and how unviable it is without lavish subsidies that other renewables dont need. It'll keep getting built in countries with nuclear arsenals though coz it can share some of those costs. Thats ultimately why we get barraged with so much pro nuclear power propaganda. It aint about reliability, it's about the military industrial complex foisting costs off on to rate and taxpayers. Obviously when Iran does this we are made aware of how awful and wrong it is but it's greenwashed under the carpet 100% of the rest of the time.