4 ms·
Large infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale. Half of a nuclear power plant is essentially the same as a c
by cycomanic 3y ago
Large infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale. Half of a nuclear power plant is essentially the same as a coal plant and they have not gone down in price either.
The reality is even assuming that we can not overcome shortages in solar and wind by overprovisioning and storage (and studies say otherwise), it does not make any sense to build nuclear instead of solar/wind as long as we are still running coal. We get much bigger CO2 reduction bang for our buck with solar and wind. Building nuclear would therefore effectively increase our CO2 over alternatives. This is especially true as nuclear plants have a relatively long ROI (in terms of CO2.
- jemmyw 3y agoIf half is the same as a coal plant could existing coal plants be converted to nuclear? They would be in the right places for power generation and it would be a win by reducing coal and not having to build a whole new plant.
- preisschild 3y agoThats already the plan for some coal sites. TerraPower (Bill Gates is the Chairman) wants to convert the first one in Wyoming. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-report-finds-hundreds-retiring-coal-plant-sites-could-convert-nuclear https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-report-finds-hundreds...
- preisschild 3y agoLarge infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale. If you do them regularly, then sure they do. You already have trained workers, an intact supply chain and contact with the regulators.