2 ms·
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 yo
by 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 agoYour 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 agoAs 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.