6 ms·
The clean up was absolutely over the top and not guided by objective measures. The government effectively already absorbs all costs involving the externalities
by epups 3y ago
The clean up was absolutely over the top and not guided by objective measures. The government effectively already absorbs all costs involving the externalities of coal, oil and other dirty sources of energy, which add up to way more than 150 billion.
- Gwypaas 3y agoGreat that the alternative in 2023 in renewables then! You're arguing a strawman comparing nuclear to fossil fuels.
- concordDance 3y agoLast I checked switching to pure renewables would triple electricity costs due to storage needs. You'd be way better off spending that money on nuclear (including accident cleanup) and healthcare.
- Gwypaas 3y agoGiven that nuclear on marginal price markets would require 5-8x the costs from renewables that is a win? Stop living in the 70s.
- concordDance 3y agoActually model it. Go look at gridwatch and use the graphs to calculate total storage needs if using a wind-solar mix, then check out the US department of energy 2019 report on energy storage solution characteristics. Calculated total cost when I did it would have tripled UK electricity prices. Pure French nuclear, on the other hand, resulted in a mere 30% increase in electricity prices.
- Gwypaas 3y agoFrench existing nuclear paid for completely opaquely to support the military nuclear program. Now input Flamanville 3 costs for your buildout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
- concordDance 3y agoYes, over regulation leads to massively spiraling costs as delays lead to financing issues (both interest and uncertainty), knowledge loss, project management timing issues, etc etc And yet even with that you're getting 400 billion kWh over its 40 year lifespan for €13 billion construction costs (multiply by 1.5 for lifetime costs), for electricity production price of €0.05 per kWh. Which is honestly decent. Btw: did you actually do the calculation before posting?
- Gwypaas 3y agoHahahahaha. Yeah, a 20 year project + 40 year lifespan and you get a "decent" number. You are guessing about 2083. Do you even listen to yourself?
- concordDance 3y agoYour reply seems to just be empty mockery unworthy of you. Do you dispute the figures I gave? Do you think the price given makes nuclear nonviable?
- epups 3y agoRenewables are great but they don't provide a good base capacity capability. That means you still need hydro, geothermal (both limited), coal, gas, oil or nuclear in your grid, with enough capacity to provide energy in case it's not sunny or windy. Large scale storage using batteries is simply not feasible at this point, which is why nuclear is still a good bridge technology until we figure that out. Unfortunately your misconception is very popular, and I think a large part of why a lot of people don't support nuclear.
- Gwypaas 3y agoOf course they do. > Indian developer secures 300 MW renewables project with $0.050/kWh bid https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secures-300-mw-renewables-project-with-0-050-kwh-bid/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/19/indian-developer-secu... Nuclear costs $0.12 - $0.20/kWh in comparison. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
- epups 3y agoSorry but your source is bad - no details whatsoever about which storage solution they are aiming for. Regardless, we know for a fact that not a single country has storage capabilities for even 1% of their energy needs. Lots of initiatives want to change that, such as the one you posted, but there is absolutely no large scale solution for this issue at all. Once you accept that fact, you realize renewables are not a replacement for nuclear at this point.
- concordDance 3y agoI greatly appreciate your second link and will have a look at it later. I'm very curious how they got such a high figure for the nuclear cost given a look at even more expensive modern nuclear reactors costs gives a number of around $0.07/kWh.
- Gwypaas 3y agoThe manufacturers say they are cheap, well 0.07/kWh is super expensive, but in your reality yes, cheap, before starting to build. Then reality hits. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants-hangs-in-the-balance/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...