6 ms·

Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed. In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regula

Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed. In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. This will only worsen the nuclear business case as renewable expansion continues, today being a bonanza fueled by finally finding an energy source cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear power is essentially pissing against the wind hoping the 1960s returns. It needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to a reliable renewable system. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... China finished 1 reactor in 2023 and are in track for a massive 3 finished reactors in 2024. On the other hand they are building enough renewables to cover their entire electricity growth. Even China has figured out that nuclear power is not economically viable. https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t... Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables.

mpweiher 2y ago
> Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect The Real World™ disagrees with your model. Time to update your model. > In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. No, nuclear power is being forced off markets by insane subsidy schemes that lead to grids being flooded with electricity at negative (or just zero) prices, due to those producers being isolated from price signals by both (a) subsidised/guaranteed producer prices and (b) priority. We are paying "renewable" produces to produce electricity that nobody wants, then have to pay consumers to take it off our hands AND wreak havoc with our reliable producers. And then we congratulate ourselves on a job well done. > Nuclear power is essentially pissing against the wind hoping the 1960s returns Nuclear power plants are licensee to print money. Unless you forbid them to operate or flood the market with subsidizes competitors and give those competitors priority. > Even China has figured out that nuclear power is not economically viable. LOL. That's why they are accelerating their nuclear program. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/china-s-nuclear-energy-expansion-is-getting-even-faster https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/china-... China’s Nuclear Energy Expansion Is Getting Even Faster Beijing’s rapid deployment of atomic power rivals its growth in solar and wind, and the round-the-clock electricity is more beneficial for the grid.
- Sakos 2y ago
  A lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring. As someone who is pro-nuclear, there are also a lot of pro-nuclear folks who are needlessly pessimistic on wind, solar and batteries.
    - atomic128 2y ago
      Look at what Germany did to itself. How long will that damage take to repair? The anti-nuclear wind/solar proponents are dangerously wrong. We need to clearly explain why wind and solar are not enough, and why nuclear is complementary. We need to explain it so everyone can understand it. We must not allow what happened in Germany to happen elsewhere.
  - Kon5ole 2y ago
    I have the same feeling but opposite. Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date, has entirely disproportionate downsides that have manifested repeatedly despite the most rigorous safety procedures found anywhere. The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, yet some people here still seem to believe that nuclear is ‘cheap and safe’. I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      > I have the same feeling but opposite. The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example... > Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants. I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it? China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs. Here's an explainer of the economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap. > has entirely disproportionate downsides What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia > The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, Yes, the evidence for nuclear is overwhelming und undeniable, yet some people go right ahead and deny it. > I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that. Agreed. I truly don't understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that nuclear is unsafe and uneconomic.

mpweiher 2y ago

> Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect The Real World™ disagrees with your model. Time to update your model. > In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy. No, nuclear power is being forced off markets by insane subsidy schemes that lead to grids being flooded with electricity at negative (or just zero) prices, due to those producers being isolated from price signals by both (a) subsidised/guaranteed producer prices and (b) priority. We are paying "renewable" produces to produce electricity that nobody wants, then have to pay consumers to take it off our hands AND wreak havoc with our reliable producers. And then we congratulate ourselves on a job well done. > Nuclear power is essentially pissing against the wind hoping the 1960s returns Nuclear power plants are licensee to print money. Unless you forbid them to operate or flood the market with subsidizes competitors and give those competitors priority. > Even China has figured out that nuclear power is not economically viable. LOL. That's why they are accelerating their nuclear program. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/china-s-nuclear-energy-expansion-is-getting-even-faster https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-03-15/china-... China’s Nuclear Energy Expansion Is Getting Even Faster Beijing’s rapid deployment of atomic power rivals its growth in solar and wind, and the round-the-clock electricity is more beneficial for the grid.

Sakos 2y ago
A lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > lot of ideologically-driven people here who are staunchly anti-nuclear no matter what. It's tiring. As someone who is pro-nuclear, there are also a lot of pro-nuclear folks who are needlessly pessimistic on wind, solar and batteries.
  - atomic128 2y ago
    Look at what Germany did to itself. How long will that damage take to repair? The anti-nuclear wind/solar proponents are dangerously wrong. We need to clearly explain why wind and solar are not enough, and why nuclear is complementary. We need to explain it so everyone can understand it. We must not allow what happened in Germany to happen elsewhere.
- Kon5ole 2y ago
  I have the same feeling but opposite. Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date, has entirely disproportionate downsides that have manifested repeatedly despite the most rigorous safety procedures found anywhere. The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, yet some people here still seem to believe that nuclear is ‘cheap and safe’. I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    > I have the same feeling but opposite. The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example... > Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants. I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it? China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs. Here's an explainer of the economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap. > has entirely disproportionate downsides What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract the effects of radiophobia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia > The evidence for this is overwhelming and undeniable, Yes, the evidence for nuclear is overwhelming und undeniable, yet some people go right ahead and deny it. > I truly don’t understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that. Agreed. I truly don't understand how it’s possible for rational humans to believe that nuclear is unsafe and uneconomic.