3 ms·

"Could reach" is a fairly hedged phrasing, there. The plant generated 16,477 GWh in 2021 [1]. Over 5 years, it'd generate 82,385,000,000 kWh. At the LAX averag

• epistasis 3y ago
  That retail rate of electricity is mostly T&D; generators of electricity get far less than $0.10/kWh. Somebody else in this thread estimates that the $6B would result in $0.8/kWh, which is 50%-100% more expensive than new solar.
  • cheald 3y ago
    New solar has the same T&D costs (plus batteries!), doesn't it?
    • epistasis 3y ago
      Yes, but it is still cheaper than nuclear, and has the benefit of increasing the productive capacity for installing even more solar and batteries. The one-off work for nuclear here will do little to nothing to enable new nuclear builds. It's short-term dead money. If we are truly at the limit of what we can deploy with solar and batteries right now, and we have spare money to spend, then perhaps this short extension is worth it, but it must be evaluated versus the alternatives such as floating offshore wind, enhanced geothermal, long-duration storage (100h), etc. People are so excited about nuclear that they don't evaluate it rationally, on its own merits, versus alternatives. That is not a healthy way to help the climate. We must be very hard nosed about not only the short term impacts but also the long term effects of investing in industries.