11 ms·

All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on limiting what you actually pay for to a small fragment of the true cost and leaving the unknown to futu

All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on limiting what you actually pay for to a small fragment of the true cost and leaving the unknown to future taxpayers. This is even formalized in international agreements. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Civil_Liability_for_Nuclear_Damage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Civil_Lia...) This means that any and all estimates of prices per MWh are, and can never be anything but, fictional. Including this one.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Even then, it's still far more expensive than renewables.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  If you had to use renewables for base load power generation, they'd be a lot more expensive, as you'd need massive overcapacity (and probably batteries / pumped storage too) to compensate for periods of low generation.
  - ourlordcaffeine 4y ago
    So, as someone who works in the energy industry, what is "base load generation" to you? It is an "always on" source? Why does a particular fuel type need to be always on?
  - tigerlily 4y ago
    So build the overcapacity. It will still be cheaper.
  - Kon5ole 4y ago
    That may be true but they would still have the advantage that if the operator goes belly-up you close the doors and the costs stop. You don't force hundreds of generations to pay for the decision, which is what we are actually doing with nuclear.
  - legulere 4y ago
    Base load power is a concept that doesn’t make sense with renewables. It’s a concept that was created for nuclear, because it has a very similar problem as renewables: the cost lies in building the generating capacity, not in using it. For nuclear to be cheap it needs to get used 100% also in the night and during the weekend. In a purely nuclear power net you also need overcapacity to be able to generate maximum load.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > they'd be a lot more expensive Citation needed. Large energy grids have plenty of capacity to transfer electricity across countries if not whole continents and balance out production and usage. Industrial loads (and various consumer loads) have been adaptive for decades.
pyrale 4y ago
> All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on [...] leaving the unknown to future taxpayers. That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You don't pay the real cost when you wear a pfc coat. You don't pay the real cost for the plastic-wrapped takeout you buy. You don't pay the real cost for the co2-emitting taxi you hail. You don't pay the real cost for the industrial agriculture you rely on. You don't pay the real cost for the water you drink. Accounting is not meant to measure "real costs, it's just a short-term measure of human activity.
- quonn 4y ago
  So what's the real future cost of a photovoltaic panel then? Will there be people alive in 100 years that need to spend money on my panel or something really bad happens?
  - pyrale 4y ago
    Is your solar panel built using power from solar panels? Where were the required ores mined, and what pollution did it generate? Was the ground fully cleaned and the environment fully restored? What impact did that have on populations, and what impact did the new activity of these populations have? Were there any effluents produced in the manufacturing of your solar panels, and how were they treated? Once your solar panel reaches its end of life, who will collect it for recycling? How efficient is the recycling? How much power does that recycling cost, and how is it produced? Are there parts that are deemed uneconomical to reprocess into new solar panels and used for other activities? Looking at the current state of e-waste, I'm not sure the outlook 100 years from now is great.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  >That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I mean what you have to pay, financially, to be clear. In the sense that when you don't want to pay for more solar power, you close the plant and stop paying. That's not an option for nuclear power plants. All closed nuclear power plants are still costing money.
goodpoint 4y ago
I'm positively surprised you are not being downvoted to hell in this place.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Even then, it's still far more expensive than renewables.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago
If you had to use renewables for base load power generation, they'd be a lot more expensive, as you'd need massive overcapacity (and probably batteries / pumped storage too) to compensate for periods of low generation.
- ourlordcaffeine 4y ago
  So, as someone who works in the energy industry, what is "base load generation" to you? It is an "always on" source? Why does a particular fuel type need to be always on?
- tigerlily 4y ago
  So build the overcapacity. It will still be cheaper.
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  That may be true but they would still have the advantage that if the operator goes belly-up you close the doors and the costs stop. You don't force hundreds of generations to pay for the decision, which is what we are actually doing with nuclear.
- legulere 4y ago
  Base load power is a concept that doesn’t make sense with renewables. It’s a concept that was created for nuclear, because it has a very similar problem as renewables: the cost lies in building the generating capacity, not in using it. For nuclear to be cheap it needs to get used 100% also in the night and during the weekend. In a purely nuclear power net you also need overcapacity to be able to generate maximum load.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > they'd be a lot more expensive Citation needed. Large energy grids have plenty of capacity to transfer electricity across countries if not whole continents and balance out production and usage. Industrial loads (and various consumer loads) have been adaptive for decades.

pyrale 4y ago

> All estimates for the cost of nuclear power are based on [...] leaving the unknown to future taxpayers. That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You don't pay the real cost when you wear a pfc coat. You don't pay the real cost for the plastic-wrapped takeout you buy. You don't pay the real cost for the co2-emitting taxi you hail. You don't pay the real cost for the industrial agriculture you rely on. You don't pay the real cost for the water you drink. Accounting is not meant to measure "real costs, it's just a short-term measure of human activity.

quonn 4y ago
So what's the real future cost of a photovoltaic panel then? Will there be people alive in 100 years that need to spend money on my panel or something really bad happens?
- pyrale 4y ago
  Is your solar panel built using power from solar panels? Where were the required ores mined, and what pollution did it generate? Was the ground fully cleaned and the environment fully restored? What impact did that have on populations, and what impact did the new activity of these populations have? Were there any effluents produced in the manufacturing of your solar panels, and how were they treated? Once your solar panel reaches its end of life, who will collect it for recycling? How efficient is the recycling? How much power does that recycling cost, and how is it produced? Are there parts that are deemed uneconomical to reprocess into new solar panels and used for other activities? Looking at the current state of e-waste, I'm not sure the outlook 100 years from now is great.
Kon5ole 4y ago
>That's true for any kind of power and, more generally, for any kind of human activity. You're thinking philosophically perhaps? :) I mean what you have to pay, financially, to be clear. In the sense that when you don't want to pay for more solar power, you close the plant and stop paying. That's not an option for nuclear power plants. All closed nuclear power plants are still costing money.

goodpoint 4y ago

I'm positively surprised you are not being downvoted to hell in this place.