3 ms·
The practical arguments in favor of nuclear seem to assume that new nuclear technology only needs to compete with old nuclear technology. Let's set aside the s
by bunderbunder 2y ago
The practical arguments in favor of nuclear seem to assume that new nuclear technology only needs to compete with old nuclear technology.
Let's set aside the safety argument. They're claiming $0.46 per kilowatt-hour for a technology they haven't developed yet. I believe that's about an order of magnitude more expensive than what wind can do right now. Heck, right now my local utility's website is reporting a retail spot price of seven cents per kilowatt-hour. Maybe paying six times as much is worthwhile for the reduced carbon footprint relative to fossil fuels, but if that's the argument then just say that rather than weakening your position by calling it "cheap" when it's easy to see that it isn't.
- elil17 2y agoThe article quotes that number as the cost of the actual nuclear fuel. That number makes no sense - I'm sure it's a typo. They probably meant to say 4/10ths of a cent per megawatt hour. Of course, most of the actual costs come from capital/operations.
- Bedon292 2y agoThey say 0.46 ¢/kWh. Its a cent sign rather than a dollar sign. It is less than half a cent per kWh for the fuel. I also found this [1] chart from 2022 which has nuclear fuel costs around 0.6 ¢/kWh and fossil fuel costs around 3.2 ¢/kWh. So the 0.46 would be 1/7 rather than 6x. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago> They're claiming $0.46 per kilowatt-hour No they're not, they're claiming 0.46 ¢/kWh, as in $0.0046/kWh. That is insanely cheap. You could completely charge an EV for under 50 cents. My electricity is $0.11/kWh and ranges from $100-300/month depending on season. At $0.0046/kWh, that would reduce to $4-12/month.