9 ms·

this is simply not true. according to IEA https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-cost

this is simply not true. according to IEA https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el... LCOE of nuclear is cheaper than almost all other possibilities we have. sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. your correct that nuclear has had some very expensive accidents, but the chance of a modern gen3+ plant that we'd build today causing any accidents like that in a western country is so very close to 0 that it's not even worth discussing.

Retric 4y ago
You see a lot of handwaving such as that very close to 0 statement with nuclear but someone’s got to be on the hook. The rate and cost of failures directly relate to insurance costs. A 1 in 100,000 chance per year to cause a 500 billion dollar accident represents a ~5 million per year insurance cost to offset that risk before considering the risk premium associated with insurance. And that’s on top of the normal risks for large complexes that have little to do with nuclear just high voltage equipment etc. Unsubsidized insurance costs are something like 0.2c/kWh which is quite significant for these projects. In the end you see a lot of people talking nonsense around nuclear costs using wildly optimistic numbers, but there hasn’t been a power plant built and operated in the last 20 years that come even close to these numbers. Let alone when you start to compare predictions for decommissioning costs with actual decommissioning costs.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > but there hasn’t been a power plant built and operated in the last 20 years that come even close to these numbers If we are being honest, that also has a lot to do with why nuclear is so expensive.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Sure, I have no issue saying nuclear could in theory cost 40% less with reasonable regulation and a large scale deployment across decades. I just have problems with people saying well it could in theory cost X, therefore it does cost X.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
  that's simply still not true. the last three plants built in Europe (England, France and Finland) has been very expensive because they've all been first of its kind and there hasn't really been built anything else. but if you take a look at what's happening elsewhere in the world KHNP for example has their standardized APR1400 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400 reactor that seems to be very affordable Poland just decided to build our nuclear to the tune of 40bn eur and their first contract is with westinghouse and their ap1000 reactor but also signed a letter of intent with KHNP to also built out further. I'm sure they cost Westinghouse for strategic reasons though and not because of price. heck.. even Finland with their massively delayed and over budget Olkiluoto 3 also plans to built out even more nuclear. it's almost like some countries are now realizing that putting your faith in the weather gods for supply safety is not a good idea and that solar and wind are simply not viable for baseload or the grid in general. i still think wind and solar has a place for creating synthetic fuels, but let's stop pretending it's been comparable to nuclear for the grid. edit: also.. are your saying IEA has wrong data? and if so, would you mind bringing since sources into your argument about people being way too optimistic
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Someone suggesting the organization which made these predictions about solar https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoa6xYXIAQKUnv?format=jpg&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoa6xYXIAQKUnv?format=jpg&name=... and is headed by an ex OPEC employee might be making bad cost projections when real prices of real projects in 2022 have a median far lower than their projection from 2020? Must be a conspiracy theorist.
    - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
      solar is fine in some places for some usecases and yes it's very cheap to add, but we've currently got no viable solution for storing the energy efficiently.
      - peterashford 4y ago
- belorn 4y ago
  > You see a lot of handwaving such as that very close to 0 statement with nuclear but someone’s got to be on the hook. Yes, and that one is society. It what we do with any risk that is so great that if any company would have to carry it then the company would fold and society would still have to carry it. Hydro power is one prime example. If a dam would break the damage downstream would be too high for any power company to pay. Individuals living downstream might have insurance, but no insurance company can handle the cost of a major flood. The only entity able to do so would be the government. An other example is forest fires caused by poor maintenance of power lines. Such things happens from time to time and it not the power company or their insurance that will cover if half a country is up in literal flames and a few towns are lost. There might be a bit of bad press, a few millions/billions in damages, but the true cost won't land anywhere near the power company. Fully eliminate the risk of floods and fire from the power grid would be very difficult, and putting the power company on the hook for the full cost would be impractical and counter productive. Society need electricity. The best they can do is impose regulations, and in exchange society will pick up some of the risk.
  - crote 4y ago
    Unfortunately your examples have been litigated in practice already, and reality does not agree with you. See for example [0], which is a nice writeup on the liability for dam failure. As it turns out, there are very few cases in which the operator would not be liable. Similarly, Pacific Power has been sued for wildfires in Colorado, and PG&E even plead guilty to manslaughter in the Paradise fire - and had to file for bankruptcy after being faced with a $30bn liability. Those companies can and should be held responsible for the damages they cause. You can't just privatize all the profits and leave all the losses to the government! If you want to do something so dangerous nobody is willing or even able to insure you, you should not be allowed to do it. [0]: https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Legal%20Liability%20for%20Dam%20Failures.pdf https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Legal%20Liab...
    - subradios 4y ago
      That is not what is being said. What is being said is that there are two factors to nuclear accidents: 1. The actual costs of containment, cleanup, repair. 2. The arbitrarily imposed costs to satisfy a terrified public. For power generation, humans just need electricity. This requires large networks of high voltage lines crisscrossing the country. Those lines will start wildfires at some rate X. A utility cannot survive being liable for all damages by that wildfire. So what you do - is everyone buys insurance and the government sets "best practice" regulations designed to reduce X to a number considered reasonable. Investigations that result in litigation are usually what happens when the company has clearly violated best practice. The problem with all things nuclear is that our vision of acceptable number and severity of nuclear incidents is that it needs to be negative.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fundatus 4y ago
> sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. Hinkley Point C is currently expected to cost around $31 billion once finished for a measly 3,000 MW. For that money you could build ~2,300 15MW onshore wind turbines - which would add up to roughly 34,500 MW capacity. So even under the assumptions that - you have to replace the wind turbines 3x to reach 100 years life span and - you always have to build more renewables since they don't run at 100% their capacity throughout their lifespan wind make more sense economically nowadays.
- smeagull 4y ago
  The cost of the land required is non-trivial.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Onshore wind can overlap with pasture land. Offshore wind pays into the public purse now via the leases and still costs about half what subsidised nuclear does. It's still a very young industry.
    - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
      seriously.. bring some evidence. onshore wind is just not going to happen it just has too many problems. and offshore wind is more expensive, less reliable and takes roughly the same time to build as nuclear. Denmark is currently planning to build a 3Gw energy island that will cost a whopping 40bn dollars and is planed to be finished in 2033. insane if you ask me
      - crote 4y ago
        Onshore wind has been happening for decades. See for example the 1.5GW farm in California, the 1GW farm in New Mexico, the 1GW one in Oklahoma, the 900MW one in Texas, or the 845MW one in Oregon. Offshore has a rather fast construction time, it turns out. For example, the United Kingdom's Hornsea Wind Farm Project 2 was given planning permission in 2016, and it reached its full capacity of 1.4GW less than six years later. Project 1 at the same wind farm reached 1.2GW in less than five years. And when it comes to cost, Hornsea Project 3 is to start construction next year - with commercial operation scheduled in 2025 - at $12bn for 2.4GW. Not bad when you compare it to Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant unit 3 costing an estimated $11bn for 1.6GW - which took 22 years from first license application to design output power.
crote 4y ago
Do you have a source for the 100-year lifetime? Currently a lot of reactors are hitting the 30-40 year mark, and they are running into significant issues with the aging equipment. We are seeing an increasing number of minor incidents, often caused due to manufacturing defects finally rearing its head, or just plain fatigue. Meanwhile, solar has a 25-year economic lifespan. At that point you can make more money by replacing them with more efficient panels. However, manufacturers have already started offering 40-year warranties for consumer panels, at which point they have a guaranteed 88% power output. Wind indeed has a lifespan of 25 years, which seems pretty average when compared to literally any other power plant with moving parts. When it comes to accidents, they are indeed extremely unlikely. However, the figure to look at is the potential damages multiplied by the likelyhood of the accident. When we look at those two together, they are definitely worth discussing.
- Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
  well i guess a 100 years lifetime was kind of pulled out of my ass, what i was trying to communicate is that you can I'm theory maintain a nuclear power plant to last for 100s of years but i guess if you'd just let it run without doing anything it would probably run for 30-40 years. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-data-animation-nuclear-power-plant-life-extensions-enable-clean-energy-transition https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-data-animation-nuc... solar is fine for those who can afford it, but workout subsidies and the ability to sell electricity back to the grid it's a crazy long term investment in many places of the world especially northern Europe where I'm from (for hopefully obvious reasons). so different milage may apply elsewhere. i guess we'll have to see if those 40 years are for real and if the companies offering it are even around in 20 years. wind needs constant maintenance to have a 20 year lifespan, but beyond the 25 years you'd have to replace the whole thing. so while a nuclear powerplant also requires constant maintenance you don't have to treat down the whole plant after 40 years. even the German ones that are closing now could easily have their lifetime extended https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-i... >When it comes to accidents, they are indeed extremely unlikely. However, the figure to look at is the potential damages multiplied by the likelyhood of the accident. When we look at those two together, they are definitely worth discussing. i guess what I'm trying to say is that we as a civilization engage in activities that are way more risky and dangerous than the miniscule risk of a serious accident in a modern gen 3+ nuclear power plant. of course we should have strict regulation here, but it's just not that dangerous or risky
Arn_Thor 4y ago
> your correct that nuclear has had some very expensive accidents, but the chance of a modern gen3+ plant that we'd build today causing any accidents like that in a western country is so very close to 0 that it's not even worth discussing. But that's precisely why nuclear power plants are so expensive to construct. If the generation technology was inherently less risky, it stands to reason the facilities would be cheaper to build
_0w8t 4y ago
Any claims about 100 years of trouble-free operations of a nuclear reactor is a wishfull thinking at best. For example, in France nuclear power reactors were stopped because unexpected cracks appeared in pipes after just 25 years of operations requiring expensive maintenance, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/France-Closes-Two-Nuclear-Plants-After-Finding-Cracks-In-The-Infrastructure.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/France-Cl... That put reactors off-line for over a year. Then Sweeden closed one of its reactors because it bacame unprofitable due to raising maintainance costs, https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-sweden-europe-a08facfe81523e85083e21ffe1ded681 https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-sweden-europe...

Retric 4y ago

You see a lot of handwaving such as that very close to 0 statement with nuclear but someone’s got to be on the hook. The rate and cost of failures directly relate to insurance costs. A 1 in 100,000 chance per year to cause a 500 billion dollar accident represents a ~5 million per year insurance cost to offset that risk before considering the risk premium associated with insurance. And that’s on top of the normal risks for large complexes that have little to do with nuclear just high voltage equipment etc. Unsubsidized insurance costs are something like 0.2c/kWh which is quite significant for these projects. In the end you see a lot of people talking nonsense around nuclear costs using wildly optimistic numbers, but there hasn’t been a power plant built and operated in the last 20 years that come even close to these numbers. Let alone when you start to compare predictions for decommissioning costs with actual decommissioning costs.

nwiswell 4y ago
> but there hasn’t been a power plant built and operated in the last 20 years that come even close to these numbers If we are being honest, that also has a lot to do with why nuclear is so expensive.
- Retric 4y ago
  Sure, I have no issue saying nuclear could in theory cost 40% less with reasonable regulation and a large scale deployment across decades. I just have problems with people saying well it could in theory cost X, therefore it does cost X.
Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
that's simply still not true. the last three plants built in Europe (England, France and Finland) has been very expensive because they've all been first of its kind and there hasn't really been built anything else. but if you take a look at what's happening elsewhere in the world KHNP for example has their standardized APR1400 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400 reactor that seems to be very affordable Poland just decided to build our nuclear to the tune of 40bn eur and their first contract is with westinghouse and their ap1000 reactor but also signed a letter of intent with KHNP to also built out further. I'm sure they cost Westinghouse for strategic reasons though and not because of price. heck.. even Finland with their massively delayed and over budget Olkiluoto 3 also plans to built out even more nuclear. it's almost like some countries are now realizing that putting your faith in the weather gods for supply safety is not a good idea and that solar and wind are simply not viable for baseload or the grid in general. i still think wind and solar has a place for creating synthetic fuels, but let's stop pretending it's been comparable to nuclear for the grid. edit: also.. are your saying IEA has wrong data? and if so, would you mind bringing since sources into your argument about people being way too optimistic
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Someone suggesting the organization which made these predictions about solar https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoa6xYXIAQKUnv?format=jpg&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FOoa6xYXIAQKUnv?format=jpg&name=... and is headed by an ex OPEC employee might be making bad cost projections when real prices of real projects in 2022 have a median far lower than their projection from 2020? Must be a conspiracy theorist.
  - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
    solar is fine in some places for some usecases and yes it's very cheap to add, but we've currently got no viable solution for storing the energy efficiently.
    - peterashford 4y ago
belorn 4y ago
> You see a lot of handwaving such as that very close to 0 statement with nuclear but someone’s got to be on the hook. Yes, and that one is society. It what we do with any risk that is so great that if any company would have to carry it then the company would fold and society would still have to carry it. Hydro power is one prime example. If a dam would break the damage downstream would be too high for any power company to pay. Individuals living downstream might have insurance, but no insurance company can handle the cost of a major flood. The only entity able to do so would be the government. An other example is forest fires caused by poor maintenance of power lines. Such things happens from time to time and it not the power company or their insurance that will cover if half a country is up in literal flames and a few towns are lost. There might be a bit of bad press, a few millions/billions in damages, but the true cost won't land anywhere near the power company. Fully eliminate the risk of floods and fire from the power grid would be very difficult, and putting the power company on the hook for the full cost would be impractical and counter productive. Society need electricity. The best they can do is impose regulations, and in exchange society will pick up some of the risk.
- crote 4y ago
  Unfortunately your examples have been litigated in practice already, and reality does not agree with you. See for example [0], which is a nice writeup on the liability for dam failure. As it turns out, there are very few cases in which the operator would not be liable. Similarly, Pacific Power has been sued for wildfires in Colorado, and PG&E even plead guilty to manslaughter in the Paradise fire - and had to file for bankruptcy after being faced with a $30bn liability. Those companies can and should be held responsible for the damages they cause. You can't just privatize all the profits and leave all the losses to the government! If you want to do something so dangerous nobody is willing or even able to insure you, you should not be allowed to do it. [0]: https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Legal%20Liability%20for%20Dam%20Failures.pdf https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/files/Legal%20Liab...
  - subradios 4y ago
    That is not what is being said. What is being said is that there are two factors to nuclear accidents: 1. The actual costs of containment, cleanup, repair. 2. The arbitrarily imposed costs to satisfy a terrified public. For power generation, humans just need electricity. This requires large networks of high voltage lines crisscrossing the country. Those lines will start wildfires at some rate X. A utility cannot survive being liable for all damages by that wildfire. So what you do - is everyone buys insurance and the government sets "best practice" regulations designed to reduce X to a number considered reasonable. Investigations that result in litigation are usually what happens when the company has clearly violated best practice. The problem with all things nuclear is that our vision of acceptable number and severity of nuclear incidents is that it needs to be negative.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fundatus 4y ago

> sure nuclear is very expensive up front, but a nuclear powerplant can run for 100 years while wind and solar had to be completely replaced every 25 years. Hinkley Point C is currently expected to cost around $31 billion once finished for a measly 3,000 MW. For that money you could build ~2,300 15MW onshore wind turbines - which would add up to roughly 34,500 MW capacity. So even under the assumptions that - you have to replace the wind turbines 3x to reach 100 years life span and - you always have to build more renewables since they don't run at 100% their capacity throughout their lifespan wind make more sense economically nowadays.

smeagull 4y ago
The cost of the land required is non-trivial.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Onshore wind can overlap with pasture land. Offshore wind pays into the public purse now via the leases and still costs about half what subsidised nuclear does. It's still a very young industry.
  - Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
    seriously.. bring some evidence. onshore wind is just not going to happen it just has too many problems. and offshore wind is more expensive, less reliable and takes roughly the same time to build as nuclear. Denmark is currently planning to build a 3Gw energy island that will cost a whopping 40bn dollars and is planed to be finished in 2033. insane if you ask me
    - crote 4y ago
      Onshore wind has been happening for decades. See for example the 1.5GW farm in California, the 1GW farm in New Mexico, the 1GW one in Oklahoma, the 900MW one in Texas, or the 845MW one in Oregon. Offshore has a rather fast construction time, it turns out. For example, the United Kingdom's Hornsea Wind Farm Project 2 was given planning permission in 2016, and it reached its full capacity of 1.4GW less than six years later. Project 1 at the same wind farm reached 1.2GW in less than five years. And when it comes to cost, Hornsea Project 3 is to start construction next year - with commercial operation scheduled in 2025 - at $12bn for 2.4GW. Not bad when you compare it to Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant unit 3 costing an estimated $11bn for 1.6GW - which took 22 years from first license application to design output power.

crote 4y ago

Do you have a source for the 100-year lifetime? Currently a lot of reactors are hitting the 30-40 year mark, and they are running into significant issues with the aging equipment. We are seeing an increasing number of minor incidents, often caused due to manufacturing defects finally rearing its head, or just plain fatigue. Meanwhile, solar has a 25-year economic lifespan. At that point you can make more money by replacing them with more efficient panels. However, manufacturers have already started offering 40-year warranties for consumer panels, at which point they have a guaranteed 88% power output. Wind indeed has a lifespan of 25 years, which seems pretty average when compared to literally any other power plant with moving parts. When it comes to accidents, they are indeed extremely unlikely. However, the figure to look at is the potential damages multiplied by the likelyhood of the accident. When we look at those two together, they are definitely worth discussing.

Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
well i guess a 100 years lifetime was kind of pulled out of my ass, what i was trying to communicate is that you can I'm theory maintain a nuclear power plant to last for 100s of years but i guess if you'd just let it run without doing anything it would probably run for 30-40 years. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-data-animation-nuclear-power-plant-life-extensions-enable-clean-energy-transition https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-data-animation-nuc... solar is fine for those who can afford it, but workout subsidies and the ability to sell electricity back to the grid it's a crazy long term investment in many places of the world especially northern Europe where I'm from (for hopefully obvious reasons). so different milage may apply elsewhere. i guess we'll have to see if those 40 years are for real and if the companies offering it are even around in 20 years. wind needs constant maintenance to have a 20 year lifespan, but beyond the 25 years you'd have to replace the whole thing. so while a nuclear powerplant also requires constant maintenance you don't have to treat down the whole plant after 40 years. even the German ones that are closing now could easily have their lifetime extended https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-i... >When it comes to accidents, they are indeed extremely unlikely. However, the figure to look at is the potential damages multiplied by the likelyhood of the accident. When we look at those two together, they are definitely worth discussing. i guess what I'm trying to say is that we as a civilization engage in activities that are way more risky and dangerous than the miniscule risk of a serious accident in a modern gen 3+ nuclear power plant. of course we should have strict regulation here, but it's just not that dangerous or risky

Arn_Thor 4y ago

> your correct that nuclear has had some very expensive accidents, but the chance of a modern gen3+ plant that we'd build today causing any accidents like that in a western country is so very close to 0 that it's not even worth discussing. But that's precisely why nuclear power plants are so expensive to construct. If the generation technology was inherently less risky, it stands to reason the facilities would be cheaper to build

_0w8t 4y ago

Any claims about 100 years of trouble-free operations of a nuclear reactor is a wishfull thinking at best. For example, in France nuclear power reactors were stopped because unexpected cracks appeared in pipes after just 25 years of operations requiring expensive maintenance, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/France-Closes-Two-Nuclear-Plants-After-Finding-Cracks-In-The-Infrastructure.html https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/France-Cl... That put reactors off-line for over a year. Then Sweeden closed one of its reactors because it bacame unprofitable due to raising maintainance costs, https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-sweden-europe-a08facfe81523e85083e21ffe1ded681 https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-sweden-europe...