11 ms·

Again, 60-80% of projects that cost tens of billions is in construction. 100m on land is trivial and doesn't budge this figure. The interest on financing has no

Again, 60-80% of projects that cost tens of billions is in construction. 100m on land is trivial and doesn't budge this figure. The interest on financing has nothing to do with the actual cost of construction. That depends on how much working capital the builder has and how much they're taking out via loans. And it applies to any big construction project, not just nuclear power plants. Furthermore it means that improvements that hasten the completion of nuclear plants have an outsized effect because it means you pay off the load sooner. There is nothing of substance in your comments that contradicts the claim that 60-80% of nuclear power's cost is in construction.

Retric 3y ago
0.33 billion or 0.15 billion alone might not make a difference, but it isn’t alone here. Someone needs to pay all the costs not just those you happen to want to talk about. But there’s no reason to be abstract, let’s see a breakdown for the full lifecycle of a single rector and see what all the individual costs add up to. I’ll even let you pick any fully decommissioned reactor for cost comparisons to find one within that 60-80% range.