5 ms·

> One, the time horizon over which we observe and discount the levelised cost of energy (unsubsidised) relative to the plant’s lifetime. Nukes’ long lives mean

> One, the time horizon over which we observe and discount the levelised cost of energy (unsubsidised) relative to the plant’s lifetime. Nukes’ long lives mean their tremendous capital costs’ amortisation matters. In this, the anti-nuke tends to fudge its numbers. What long economic payback time means is that the risks are huge. A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s. A 60 year payback time and it's 1940s and the second world war is raging. How reasonable is it for Churchill, FDR and Stalin to predict energy investments that they only expect to get returns on in the 2020s? All while competing solutions are already eating nuclear energy's lunch. Trying to use long amortization is simply a crutch by people who do not understand basic economics. You can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects. The chosen 20 years are simply because it is more economically efficient to replace them early, because what we expect to have available in 20 years are so much better that the economic efficiency gains are worth it. Engineering a renewable plant for 40 or 60 years is trivial, it simply is not worth it. A read for you is: "Understanding the Time Value of Money" https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. > can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built to actually last that long. Nukes are. > what we expect to have available in 20 years are so much better that the economic efficiency gains are worth it You’re confusing technological progress with the time value of money. The former is unpredictable, particularly between two technologies progressing at different frontiers.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. Maybe it's safety, democracy (locals and others get a say in having a local nuclear plant) or lots of other things we could speculate. What does the evidence say? And even if permitting is involved, that could just be the mechanism of safety, democracy, etc. Words like 'obviously' and 'bunk' (in a prior comment) aren't persuasive, just provocative - they signal to me that you won't listen to anyone else (maybe you don't mean it that way).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What does the evidence say? That it’s not safety related. The evidence being in the block you quoted: it shouldn’t take 10 years to clear a wire through environmental review.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      If someone has the evidence, that would be great. Your comments seem so dismissive and determined that it's hard to take them at face value. Do you work in the industry?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > someone has the evidence For what? These threads are littered with citations and specific data. > Do you work in the industry? Nope.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. Yeah, because China is what we want to emulate. Of course, if it paints nuclear power in a positive light you gotta do what you gotta do. > No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built to actually last that long. Nukes are. Which means you do not understand economics 101, while still trying to justify something that goes against it. They are built for a certain lifespan because that is what investors find are the optimal between construction cost and payback time. It is trivial to engineer renewable a plant to last 40 or 60 years. The construction cost would of course not double or triple to achieve this. Thus we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum. > You’re confusing technological progress with the time value of money. Technological progress, means risk, because your solution might become obsolete and a stranded asset before it pays back the investment. Technological progress is the time value of money. The same as political progress. Imagine you construct a factory in eastern Ukraine in 2005. What is the risk of Russia invading? This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor, the longer out you go the larger the profit must be because the risk increases exponentially.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > China is what we want to emulate No, but we don’t throw out data we don’t like. Pre-AP1000, in the modern era, the data are grim. Post-AP1000 it’s much better. > Which means you do not understand economics 101 Have you ever held a senior role in finance or banking? If you’re going to go ad hominem, don’t bring a rubber duck to a battleship. > we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum It’s because it divides by 5. It’s a short-hand, similar to the value of a company being 10x and a reasonable margin of error 15%. (It’s also an available risk-free rate in most currencies.) > trivial to engineer renewable a plant to last 40 or 60 years. The construction cost would of course not double or triple to achieve this. Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.) > Technological progress is the time value of money No, it is not. > This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor Oof, no, it’s not. Seriously, you can derive this and it’s elementary finance. Also, like, the marshmallow test.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> A 15 year construction and 40 year payback time and we are in the 1960s Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. > can extend the amortization for renewables power plants with similar effects No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built to actually last that long. Nukes are. > what we expect to have available in 20 years are so much better that the economic efficiency gains are worth it You’re confusing technological progress with the time value of money. The former is unpredictable, particularly between two technologies progressing at different frontiers.

wolverine876 3y ago
> China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. Maybe it's safety, democracy (locals and others get a say in having a local nuclear plant) or lots of other things we could speculate. What does the evidence say? And even if permitting is involved, that could just be the mechanism of safety, democracy, etc. Words like 'obviously' and 'bunk' (in a prior comment) aren't persuasive, just provocative - they signal to me that you won't listen to anyone else (maybe you don't mean it that way).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What does the evidence say? That it’s not safety related. The evidence being in the block you quoted: it shouldn’t take 10 years to clear a wire through environmental review.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    If someone has the evidence, that would be great. Your comments seem so dismissive and determined that it's hard to take them at face value. Do you work in the industry?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > someone has the evidence For what? These threads are littered with citations and specific data. > Do you work in the industry? Nope.
ViewTrick1002 3y ago
> Don’t do that. China built its first AP1000s in 9 years, including waiting approximately half that time for a coolant pump. We take about that long to NEPA a transmission line. The problem is very obviously permitting. Yeah, because China is what we want to emulate. Of course, if it paints nuclear power in a positive light you gotta do what you gotta do. > No, you can’t, because they aren’t being built to actually last that long. Nukes are. Which means you do not understand economics 101, while still trying to justify something that goes against it. They are built for a certain lifespan because that is what investors find are the optimal between construction cost and payback time. It is trivial to engineer renewable a plant to last 40 or 60 years. The construction cost would of course not double or triple to achieve this. Thus we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum. > You’re confusing technological progress with the time value of money. Technological progress, means risk, because your solution might become obsolete and a stranded asset before it pays back the investment. Technological progress is the time value of money. The same as political progress. Imagine you construct a factory in eastern Ukraine in 2005. What is the risk of Russia invading? This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor, the longer out you go the larger the profit must be because the risk increases exponentially.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > China is what we want to emulate No, but we don’t throw out data we don’t like. Pre-AP1000, in the modern era, the data are grim. Post-AP1000 it’s much better. > Which means you do not understand economics 101 Have you ever held a senior role in finance or banking? If you’re going to go ad hominem, don’t bring a rubber duck to a battleship. > we aim for 20 years, because that is the current optimum It’s because it divides by 5. It’s a short-hand, similar to the value of a company being 10x and a reasonable margin of error 15%. (It’s also an available risk-free rate in most currencies.) > trivial to engineer renewable a plant to last 40 or 60 years. The construction cost would of course not double or triple to achieve this. Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.) > Technological progress is the time value of money No, it is not. > This is why the time value of money is an exponential factor Oof, no, it’s not. Seriously, you can derive this and it’s elementary finance. Also, like, the marshmallow test.