5 ms·

Construction time is misleading. It takes a few days to a couple of weeks to build a wind turbine, but at least in Germany a wind turbine construction project t

Construction time is misleading. It takes a few days to a couple of weeks to build a wind turbine, but at least in Germany a wind turbine construction project takes more than five years. So what better estimate would you suggest? What nuclear power plants where built in the last decade or so, for how much do they sell their power? How big will their decomissioning costs be per MWh?

mpweiher 3y ago
> Construction time is misleading. Please support your claim. We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.
- adrianN 3y ago
  It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years. I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Simple: Take the Vogtle-3 time, divide by average time to construct a nuclear reactor. Apply factor to Lazard "estimate".
    - hef19898 3y ago
      If it is so simple, can you do that math for us?
    - adrianN 3y ago
      Even going by that ridiculously oversimplified calculation, and taking best-case numbers 0.75*$141 (10 years from first concrete poured to grid connection vs your 7.5 years average) is still barely competitive with worst-case Wind+Storage and more expensive than solar as Lazard estimates. And those are proven numbers from real projects not some pie in the sky guesstimates.
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        Your numbers don't add up. Vogtle was only delayed by 25%, 2.5 years? I thought it was such a disaster and this proved nuclear doesn't work? Now it's all good? This says the delay was 7 years: https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtle-rates-costs-75c7a413cda3935dd551be9115e88a64 https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... Oh, and the plant will still be cost effective, apparently, even with those delays. Oh, and the solar numbers include sufficient batter storage? I saw something about 4h for half the capacity on some of the graphs. Most didn't explain at all.
        adrianN 3y ago
        As I said above, where you didn't believe me, construction times are misleading. First concrete poured was 2013. If you don't like the numbers, please suggest a better cost estimate. As it is, nuclear seems to be expensive.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...

mpweiher 3y ago

> Construction time is misleading. Please support your claim. We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

adrianN 3y ago
It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years. I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Simple: Take the Vogtle-3 time, divide by average time to construct a nuclear reactor. Apply factor to Lazard "estimate".
  - hef19898 3y ago
    If it is so simple, can you do that math for us?
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Even going by that ridiculously oversimplified calculation, and taking best-case numbers 0.75*$141 (10 years from first concrete poured to grid connection vs your 7.5 years average) is still barely competitive with worst-case Wind+Storage and more expensive than solar as Lazard estimates. And those are proven numbers from real projects not some pie in the sky guesstimates.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      Your numbers don't add up. Vogtle was only delayed by 25%, 2.5 years? I thought it was such a disaster and this proved nuclear doesn't work? Now it's all good? This says the delay was 7 years: https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtle-rates-costs-75c7a413cda3935dd551be9115e88a64 https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... Oh, and the plant will still be cost effective, apparently, even with those delays. Oh, and the solar numbers include sufficient batter storage? I saw something about 4h for half the capacity on some of the graphs. Most didn't explain at all.
      - adrianN 3y ago
        As I said above, where you didn't believe me, construction times are misleading. First concrete poured was 2013. If you don't like the numbers, please suggest a better cost estimate. As it is, nuclear seems to be expensive.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...