2 ms·

The essence of this paper is that nuclear power prices declined until about 1970 at which point for some reason they went up and then continued going up and up.

by pydry 4y ago

The essence of this paper is that nuclear power prices declined until about 1970 at which point for some reason they went up and then continued going up and up. It isnt clear why this happened and beyond "we just didnt build enough" the paper doesnt seem to advance any ideas. I suspect there is a more to it than that (e.g. a focus on safety, extreme capital intensity, subsidies being wound down, corruption). The idea that the price could be 10% of what it is now is founded upon the idea that maybe if prices kept going down instead of up in 1970 we wouldnt be where we are. I think a study that actually attacked the "why it went up" would do a better job of clarifying whether that is possible. Im very dubious. Meanwhile, a combo solar/wind/pumped storage is already ~60-65% the cost of nuclear power and has been on a consistent downward trend for many years. This seems like a better use of our money than drenching nuclear power in even more taxpayer subsidies in the hope that it'll one day pay off.

belorn 4y ago
We are currently living in the worse case scenario. We are burning about as much oil, gas and coal that is possible, while at the same time have energy prices being several times above of what any carbon free alternative cost. A big explanation for "why it (cost of nuclear) went up" in EU is that in the 1970, the energy sector went through several major changes. Utilization of hydro energy reached 100% and few new plants got built. Fossil fueled power plants became massively more effective and cheaper to build, and prices for fuel were initially very high but then began to free fall. Nuclear power paid off very well when fossil fuels costed a lot and nations were rationing the worlds supply of oil, but when that oil became cheap and plenty then those nuclear power plants started to look expensive to build and people opted to build fossil fueled power plants instead. The best use of our money right now is to break off from the fossil fuel dependency that previous decades built up. Energy prices are already in EU way beyond that of the most expensively built nuclear plant that anyone can imagine, with prices expecting to rise around $2-3 per kw/h later this winter. Solar/wind/hydro/storage/nuclear/anything-not-fossil-fuels is currently operating on a massive profit margin compared to the costs of producing energy.

by pydry 4y ago

belorn 4y ago

We are currently living in the worse case scenario. We are burning about as much oil, gas and coal that is possible, while at the same time have energy prices being several times above of what any carbon free alternative cost. A big explanation for "why it (cost of nuclear) went up" in EU is that in the 1970, the energy sector went through several major changes. Utilization of hydro energy reached 100% and few new plants got built. Fossil fueled power plants became massively more effective and cheaper to build, and prices for fuel were initially very high but then began to free fall. Nuclear power paid off very well when fossil fuels costed a lot and nations were rationing the worlds supply of oil, but when that oil became cheap and plenty then those nuclear power plants started to look expensive to build and people opted to build fossil fueled power plants instead. The best use of our money right now is to break off from the fossil fuel dependency that previous decades built up. Energy prices are already in EU way beyond that of the most expensively built nuclear plant that anyone can imagine, with prices expecting to rise around $2-3 per kw/h later this winter. Solar/wind/hydro/storage/nuclear/anything-not-fossil-fuels is currently operating on a massive profit margin compared to the costs of producing energy.