5 ms·
No, they were much cheaper in the 70s and 80s!
by Georgelemental 3y ago
No, they were much cheaper in the 70s and 80s!
- wolverine876 3y agoThat's not what I understand, but I don't have numbers. Do you happen to know where we can find some?
- wolverine876 3y agoFrom another thread: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-Cost-of-US-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-by-Construction-Start-Date_fig8_292964046 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C...
- natmaka 3y ago"The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing" (2010, A. Grubler): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
- angiosperm 3y agoRight, nuke costs have only ever increased. For reasons. Solar and wind costs have only ever decreased. For reasons.
- juped 3y agoYou're not saying what you think you're saying with those facts.
- angiosperm 3y agoThe value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated more cheaply, of which in any case no plausible signs are evident.
- Georgelemental 3y agoNuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)
- angiosperm 3y agoI.e., with massive government subsidy, hidden behind opaque accounting. China has constructed more solar and wind generating capacity in the past year than its entire fleet of nukes will produce after they have finished building them. China is less interested in power production from their nukes than strategic isotopes.
- billytetrud 3y agoAre you blind? The only reason we have so much solar and wind is because of massive subsidies.
- angiosperm 3y agoSolar and wind are now much cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies. E.g. it is cheaper to build a new solar farm and switch over to it than to continue using an existing coal plant. The only reason massive subsidies for renewables continue is to accelerate build-out to address the looming climate catastrophe. We need to ramp up to building out a TW of new renewable capacity every year.
- zdragnar 3y agoSolar and wind are subsidized by everything else that puts electricity into the grid when the sky is dark or calm. They are a supplement to, not a straight replacement for, nuclear or gas or anything else. Factor in the cost of filling in the gaps, and solar and wind don't come out ahead.
- billytetrud 3y agoI'd like you to concede that your snarky comment about subsidies implies things that are incorrect. Nuclear is not subsidized and has never been widely subsidized. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
- natmaka 3y agoBecause from the end of WW2 up to at least the 90s civilian nuclear was supported, often indirectly, by military programs (nuclear weapons). In France the Court of audit could not even assess it.