4 ms·
Yes. As much as I am a proponent of nuclear power, the proposed grant does not make sense to me - what exactly do they need this kind of money for? Operational
by krasin 3y ago
Yes. As much as I am a proponent of nuclear power, the proposed grant does not make sense to me - what exactly do they need this kind of money for?
Operational expenses of properly built & operated nuclear plants are very low, which is the whole point. If there's a billion dollars required to keep it running, despite high energy prices in the state, something is very wrong.
- bruce511 3y agoA nuclear plant near me is currently undergoing "renovations" to extend the life of the plant. I know nothing of the california plant, but I suspect its in a similar situation. If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on. The plants of the 70s were typically built with a projected 50 year life span, so extending it another 50% is not cheap, although cheaper than building a new one. Your point about solar is well made. But solar is not 27x7 so its not comparing an equivalent thing. Solar and wind are enormously useful, and I'm a fan, but they're not enough by themselves, and won't be until we figure out how to store gw of power. Running a nuclear plant in an earthquake zone is not ideal, but its hard to see any better alternatives at the moment.
- krasin 3y ago>If so, the 1.1 billion is not running costs, but capital spent to renew parts of the plant, replace some parts and so on That would explain it. Thanks for the data point. > Your point about solar is well made. That's actually somebody else's point, not mine. :)