3 ms·
> That's a nice way of saying that nuclear power is much too expensive to not run plants at maximum capacity all the time. Nope. It means that the variable cos
by mpweiher 3y ago
> That's a nice way of saying that nuclear power is much too expensive to not run plants at maximum capacity all the time.
Nope. It means that the variable costs are low. The fuel costs for a nuclear plant are so low that it’s essentially free.
Which is also the primary reason we throw away 95% of the fuel unused: given the low cost of fuel, recycling just isn’t viable. And again, not because recycling is so expensive, but because new fuel is so cheap.
- cycomanic 3y agoYes the variable costs are low _compared to the fixed costs_. That's the point I made. If you bought a nuclear power plant for $10 billion and your calculation to get an ROI requires that you make $100 per MWh running at 80% load factor, you will not be willing to run your plant only at 50% of the time, because it does not make economic sense. Variable costs are irrelevant in this case.
- mpweiher 3y agoNo. The variable costs are not low because the fixed costs are too expensive, which was what you wrote before and what you imply here. The variable costs are low because fuel is incredibly cheap for the amount of power you get out of it. So you get the ratio correct, but miss on the cause for that ratio.
- lupusreal 3y ago[dead]