4 ms·

1.1GW for 30 BILLION dollars? Jeez, that's an insane amount of money for this little power. Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed

1.1GW for 30 BILLION dollars? Jeez, that's an insane amount of money for this little power. Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed by the government I guess. For comparison in my country they built a 1,6GW off-shore windfarm in 2 years with 0 government subsidy. I understand that a nuclear plant provides power 24/7, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But the cost of nuclear power is just insane compared to wind and PV. It's just setting up your country for higher energy cost than needed for the next 40 years, while the government takes all the risk.

klysm 3y ago
It’s hard to compare given the intermittency, but I do agree the cost is a bit absurd. It’s painful because it doesn’t have to be this way but we’ve cornered ourselves via regulation into bad designs
iwallace 3y ago
I like to compare this to Site C in British Columbia https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html#:~:text=Site%20C%20will%20provide%201%2C100,homes%20per%20year%20in%20B.C https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html#:~.... If you are lucky enough to be blessed with remote untapped rivers that can be dammed in somewhat unpopulated mountain valleys (that's another story again), it seems to be far cheaper and safer. I would imagine that Nuclear power's main issue is first and foremost cost. If you could pull off completely safe nuclear power, it just winds up costing too dang much.
ZeroCooly 3y ago
It's a reactor design and project that started in 1976 and was delayed for tens of years at a time. It's not exactly the nuclear post child, but that is largely the problem with nuclear in the United States, it, as it currently stands, could not operate at an economy of scale. If the US committed to building say 3,000 of a standardized design across the US, things would likely be very different. (Even if it is not the latest and greatest design, or the most efficient design reactor. Just mass producing parts would drive down the cost.) Basically, like my ex, it's a commitment issue and I hate this on again off again relationship we have that has me wasting money. Edit based on the rest of the comments I'm going to stop cap a reddit cascade: No I am not against solar.

klysm 3y ago

It’s hard to compare given the intermittency, but I do agree the cost is a bit absurd. It’s painful because it doesn’t have to be this way but we’ve cornered ourselves via regulation into bad designs

iwallace 3y ago

I like to compare this to Site C in British Columbia https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html#:~:text=Site%20C%20will%20provide%201%2C100,homes%20per%20year%20in%20B.C https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html#:~.... If you are lucky enough to be blessed with remote untapped rivers that can be dammed in somewhat unpopulated mountain valleys (that's another story again), it seems to be far cheaper and safer. I would imagine that Nuclear power's main issue is first and foremost cost. If you could pull off completely safe nuclear power, it just winds up costing too dang much.

ZeroCooly 3y ago

It's a reactor design and project that started in 1976 and was delayed for tens of years at a time. It's not exactly the nuclear post child, but that is largely the problem with nuclear in the United States, it, as it currently stands, could not operate at an economy of scale. If the US committed to building say 3,000 of a standardized design across the US, things would likely be very different. (Even if it is not the latest and greatest design, or the most efficient design reactor. Just mass producing parts would drive down the cost.) Basically, like my ex, it's a commitment issue and I hate this on again off again relationship we have that has me wasting money. Edit based on the rest of the comments I'm going to stop cap a reddit cascade: No I am not against solar.