4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > 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. Why aren't you answering the point? Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable. > Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.) You mean like the data available on economic nuclear energy? :) > Oof, no, it’s not. Seriously, you can derive this and it’s elementary finance. Also, like, the marshmallow test. Do you see the year in the investment time ending up in the exponent? Of course in reality you expect the money to trickle in over time reducing the risk a bit. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp#toc-calculating-future-value https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp#toc-calc...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.) And yes, I’m contesting both 60 and 15; they’re 80 and 10 and could be 80 and 5 with permitting reform. And within that latter envelope, it works with conventional financing. (The same problem plagues HVDC lines, which also take 10+ years to permit.) > Do you see the year investment time ending up in the exponent? You may actually enjoy reading some of the foundational texts whose concepts you’re glancing across. (Principles of Economics, Mankiw, is a classic. For a more-applied text, Fabozzi’s Fixed Income.) You’re citing real things. But you’re connecting them nonsensically. Investopedia isn’t a replacement for training, though it’s a good reference once you’ve learned the material. (The exponent comes from compounding time preference. Its time component is orthogonal to technological progress, which embeds in the rate. That’s why it’s constant. If you want to consider obsolescence risk, you start getting into hyperbolic discounting.)
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      > What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.) Residual value for nuclear power plants are negative. The plant is EOL and now it is time to decommission the entire site. Now you try to equate nuclear power with infrastructure, even though we have cheaper alternatives which the public don't even have to finance. Sounds reasonable? For the private industry a typical expected discount rate is 10-15% above the risk free return rate to account for known and unknown risks. Apply this to nuclear investment. For the money being returned year 60, in percentage, what is the risk? Please calculate it, don't try to suggest different methods of "delaying gratification", that is simply trying to talk around the subject because you know the answer. The risk premium for the expected returns year 60 are ludicrous which is why no one suggests it.
mpweiher 3y ago
China produces 80% of the world's solar panels and 60% of the world's wind turbines. And uses dirty coal to provide the prodigious amounts of energy required, particularly for solar panels. OK, let's take China out of the equation.

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.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
> 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. Why aren't you answering the point? Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable. > Data sorely lacking. (Outside hydro.) You mean like the data available on economic nuclear energy? :) > Oof, no, it’s not. Seriously, you can derive this and it’s elementary finance. Also, like, the marshmallow test. Do you see the year in the investment time ending up in the exponent? Of course in reality you expect the money to trickle in over time reducing the risk a bit. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp#toc-calculating-future-value https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp#toc-calc...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is it that hard to substantiate your claims that a 60 year amortization + 15 year construction = 75 years is reasonable What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.) And yes, I’m contesting both 60 and 15; they’re 80 and 10 and could be 80 and 5 with permitting reform. And within that latter envelope, it works with conventional financing. (The same problem plagues HVDC lines, which also take 10+ years to permit.) > Do you see the year investment time ending up in the exponent? You may actually enjoy reading some of the foundational texts whose concepts you’re glancing across. (Principles of Economics, Mankiw, is a classic. For a more-applied text, Fabozzi’s Fixed Income.) You’re citing real things. But you’re connecting them nonsensically. Investopedia isn’t a replacement for training, though it’s a good reference once you’ve learned the material. (The exponent comes from compounding time preference. Its time component is orthogonal to technological progress, which embeds in the rate. That’s why it’s constant. If you want to consider obsolescence risk, you start getting into hyperbolic discounting.)
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    > What do you mean reasonable? It’s real. We amortise over long time horizons in project finance all the time. Also, look up residual value. (And dams.) Residual value for nuclear power plants are negative. The plant is EOL and now it is time to decommission the entire site. Now you try to equate nuclear power with infrastructure, even though we have cheaper alternatives which the public don't even have to finance. Sounds reasonable? For the private industry a typical expected discount rate is 10-15% above the risk free return rate to account for known and unknown risks. Apply this to nuclear investment. For the money being returned year 60, in percentage, what is the risk? Please calculate it, don't try to suggest different methods of "delaying gratification", that is simply trying to talk around the subject because you know the answer. The risk premium for the expected returns year 60 are ludicrous which is why no one suggests it.

mpweiher 3y ago

China produces 80% of the world's solar panels and 60% of the world's wind turbines. And uses dirty coal to provide the prodigious amounts of energy required, particularly for solar panels. OK, let's take China out of the equation.