3 ms·

So do we just wave a magic wand and suddenly nuclear power does not cost anything. The article clearly laid out the cost and why even with deregulation LWRs are

So do we just wave a magic wand and suddenly nuclear power does not cost anything. The article clearly laid out the cost and why even with deregulation LWRs are not cost competitive (while other technology is just not there yet). Or is your argument the government should even heavier subsidise nuclear to make electricity cost nothing? But why electricity and not e.g. housing? Realistically the quickest way to get to the stage where you don't need to think about your electricity usage is put a solar installation on your roof + battery. Now you have to invest up front (and it might not even be a good investment), but it shows that nothing comes for free.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
> do we just wave a magic wand We have at least 6 magic wands: 1) if the VVER 1200 truly cost 1.4 billion to construct in 4 years, nuclear economics are saved. 2) building a lot of marine nuclear plants https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-and-economies-of-mass-production https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-... They require far less concrete (no need to protect against seisms) and much less redundancy because the cooler (water) will always be there (the ocean won't disappear) hence preventing radiations escalation in a passive way. 3) using disruptively simpler/cheaper models https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull31-3/31302392529.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... 4) using more complex but significantly more efficient models (I'm mainly talking about the underresearched supracritical reactors) 5) if SMRs are not a scam and can really have a fordism era 6) rationalizing et reconciloating regulations with cost effectiveness.