3 ms·

Plants planned or under construction will be cancelled anywhere they are not massively subsidized by government coercion of tax- or ratepayers, as energy prices

• ETH_start 4y ago
  Nuclear power is the cheapest option: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ And it is far more reliable than renewables.
  • ncmncm 4y ago
    With enough thumbs on the scale, you can support any conclusion. In this case, neglecting all public subsidies and neglecting CAPEX. It is furthermore a snapshot. Policy for construction needs to consider the future, and renewables cost is still falling fast.
  • pfdietz 4y ago
    That's for "LTO": extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants. The cost of power from new construction nuclear would be much higher.
    • ETH_start 4y ago
      The LTO is the estimated lifespan of the plant. The LTOs provided in that chart are well below the real lifespan of these plants. The capital cost of building the plants is also provided in the chart. That means this accounts for "the cost of power from new construction nuclear" you refer to.
      • pfdietz 4y ago
        LTO is referring to refurbishment efforts to extend the lifespan of an existing plant. Look at the first line in that chart. It's for 20 years of operation of a 1000 MW reactor. The capital cost is listed as $5.93/MWh. If that reactor is operating at 90% capacity factor for 20 years, the total capital cost comes in at less than $1B. That cannot possibly be the cost of building a new nuclear plant. Instead, it's the capital cost of the refurbishment needed to allow an existing reactor to operate for another 20 years. This can surely be a nice way to get more from many existing NPPs (although some of these refurbishment efforts have gone disastrously wrong; see Crystal River 3 in Florida for example), but it has little relevance to the cost of building a new NPP.
        • ETH_start 4y ago
          Yes, you're correct. Your interpretation is the only one where the numbers make sense.