5 ms·
The new Korean plants are designed for a lifespan of 60 years. If governments provide guarantees for the loans, a discount rate of 3% is not unreasonable. Set
by trashtester 4y ago
The new Korean plants are designed for a lifespan of 60 years.
If governments provide guarantees for the loans, a discount rate of 3% is not unreasonable.
Set it like that, and it spits out a price of €32.6/MWh.
Now, to make it even more reasonable to emerging economies, assume that through mass production and a relaxation of security requirements to less paranoid levels, the overnight cost can be reduced to €1500, you get $21.3/MWh.
This is what the price of electricity SHOULD be, if we want the world to stop depending on hydrocarbons. (Not just a few rich countries.)
- ncmncm 4y agoWhen your argument depends on all existing trends reversing, that tells us all we need to know about your conclusion.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoYou seem to ignore the fact that existing trends were artificially manipulated to suppress the nuclear energy use.
- pfdietz 4y ago"The fact". I think not.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoThere is an abundance of data, if one is willing to look. Just first links from DDG: "Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [1] "Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [2] "German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [3] [1]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-environmental-groups https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi... [2]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052 https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi... [3]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-branded-a-russian-puppet-over-nord-stream-ii-gas-pipeline-nzd9p056q https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
- pfdietz 4y agoThis is a load of conspiracy theoretic BS, starting from the nonsense position that environmental groups are the source of nuclear's failure.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoYeah right, "Independent fact-checkers said the information is false". The greens in Germany have consistently worked on destroying Germany's nuclear energy generation, and now it is completely dependent on gas import from Russia, funding Putin's war with Ukraine.
- pfdietz 4y agoI can fully agree that green groups have opposed nuclear. I call bullshit on the absurd idea that the global failure of nuclear is due to these groups.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoI can hardly call nuclear energy to be a 'global failure'. True, 'green' groups had some success with scaremongering people to be afraid of nuclear energy, but it is generating 10% of energy globally (projected to rise to 15% by 2030 [1] ), with much higher shares in developed countries. If anything, the Fukushima effect has finally weared out, and we'll see new plants constructed which were halted because of that scaremongering. [1]: https://www.world-energy.org/article/16596.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/16596.html
- pfdietz 4y agoWell, it obviously is a global failure. It exists in places where people can be forced to pay for it. There is not a single competitive energy market where merchant nuclear reactors have been built to compete in that market. That's because it's just too expensive. Sure, reactors have been built to exploit monopolies, and where political considerations trump economic ones. That's nothing to be proud of.
- trashtester 4y agoTrends and fashions come and go. My daughter is wearing pants that look that the ones my mother wore some years before I was born. At that time, nuclear power was still popular. And now, perhaps, it is becoming so again. Indeed, the NYT article in the topic is discussing this very question.
- ncmncm 4y agoNukes get less competitive with each passing day. But that does not keep shills out of the NYT's pages. Fortunately actual investment does not follow shills.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoTell that to France, those losers still generate 70% of energy with nuclear plants, instead of following the lead of their German colleagues in denuclearizing their energy grid.
- ncmncm 4y agoYet, France has no plans to build replacements for the large majority of plants soon to age out. What they will build is purely politically motivated. Those probably will not be completed, as they would be uncompetitive, but ratepayers might be forced to make them profitable by paying way more for power than their neighbors. Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago> Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue. Really? It has worked really well?? Thanks to these really well policies, Germany has an unbreakable dependence on Russian has [1] and has paid billions of euros to Putin's murderous regime since the start of the war with Ukraine [2]. If this is 'really well', I'd rather pass. In conclusion, I suggest you start looking more rationally on energy generation, I sense a lot of anger and unexplained hatred towards nuclear power ('aged, ramshackle nukes' is not a rational sensible argumentation). [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-russia-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-... [2]: https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/ https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/