4 ms·
Just to make sure no one misunderstands (not saying you did, just that this is easy to misread): The 4 cent/kWh figure is the additional cost it would have to
by SilasX 3y ago
Just to make sure no one misunderstands (not saying you did, just that this is easy to misread):
The 4 cent/kWh figure is the additional cost it would have to charge, over the life of the plant, to make up for the budget overage, and would go on top of whatever ratepayers would have to pay for its "regular" energy output.
Further pedantry: you'd have to factor in time value, so that kind of understates it, as the entity that built it would have had to borrow that much more to finish, and pay back with interest.
- krasin 3y agoThanks. I can now see how my comment could be misunderstood. My point is that while 4 cents per kWh for 50 years is a very big number in terms of cost overruns and the taxpayers in Georgia will have to eat it, I as a California resident, somehow pay through the nose despite abundant and cheap solar energy, especially during the daytime.
- llsf 3y agoNuclear power plants now run more than 50 years. We are pushing some to 80 years already. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...
- Retric 3y agoA large fraction of all nuclear power plants decommissioned recently didn’t make 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
- dv_dt 3y agoWe have our own nuclear albatrosses that we are overpaying for in California.