38 ms·

You can do the same calculation for renewables. There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. With the current crop of renew

You can do the same calculation for renewables. There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. With the current crop of renewables you can reinvest the profit 2-3 times over the lira of a nuclear power plant. Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years. Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific.

sofixa 2y ago
> There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. Why don't we then? And what about the associated storage needed to replicate what a nuclear power plant does? And note, 70 years as of now, many as scheduled to go up to 90-100 years. > Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific. Long term, not horrific. > Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Because it is economic insanity to rely on your asset to have an economical life across 70+ years. Then some storage boogeyman. Do check out California. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > 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... > Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks. Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Money now are worth way more than money in the future, even when adjusting for inflation etc. Thus the need for short cycles and the huge risk premiums that get added when going above 10-20 years. Here’s some reading for you: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Not when we're talking about infrastructure at the state level. Project costs of big infrastructure projects, as well as inflation, mean that getting stuff done now is better and cheaper, usually, than waiting to do it in a few decades, or redoing it every few decades. State-level infrastructure investment doesn't have the same earnings potential as regular investment. It's practically all very long term, kind of by definition (if it were short term profitable, private investors would be all over it).
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      What's the problem with redoing it every few decades when you can deploy new more efficient technology, make profit on your investment and it is cheaper for the consumers? You do know that the full cost including investment for renewables with a 10-20 year ROI are about equal to what running paid off nuclear plant costs? Excluding the accident insurance [1] and decommissioning costs for nuclear power. A 90 year nuclear project compared to investing every 20 years in more efficient renewables mean: Assume a 20% ROI, which is very low but easy to calculate. Year 0: 100% in renewables Year 20: You have 120% to reinvest. You can now build 120% of renewables plus whatever efficiency gains we had in the last 20 years. Year 40: you have you have 144% of the original investment to deploy + 40 years of efficiency gains. Year 60: you have 173% of the original investment to deploy + 60 years of efficiency gains. Year 80: you have 207% of the original investment to deploy + 60 years of efficiency gains This is why building nuclear power with a 90 year pay off time is pure idiocy. Building renewables with a short pay off time led to us to have double the energy in 80 years time while also being able to deploy 80 years more modern technology. Maybe you should look up how compound interest works? [2] Why you do you keep suggesting the scenario where we simply lose money? Because you entwined your identity with a power source and are using you lack of understanding of economics to try justify it? Private investors are all over renewables? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... [2]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp

sofixa 2y ago

> There is nothing stopping us from building wind turbines with 70 year lifespans. Why don't we then? And what about the associated storage needed to replicate what a nuclear power plant does? And note, 70 years as of now, many as scheduled to go up to 90-100 years. > Touting the “long lifespan” is simply an admission that nuclear powers economics are horrific. Long term, not horrific. > Maybe you have heard of calculating interest and how much more value money now has rather than in 90 years adding 20 years to your 70 year lifespan. Or when being able to reinvest your profits every 10-20 years Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Because it is economic insanity to rely on your asset to have an economical life across 70+ years. Then some storage boogeyman. Do check out California. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > 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... > Exactly, paying an obscene amount of money now means that in 90 years' time, that money is much cheaper compared if you had to spend it in 90 years, or every 20 years to replace your renewables and storage parks. Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Money now are worth way more than money in the future, even when adjusting for inflation etc. Thus the need for short cycles and the huge risk premiums that get added when going above 10-20 years. Here’s some reading for you: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp
- sofixa 2y ago
  > Great that you admit to having zero economic knowledge. That is the exact reverse of how it works. Not when we're talking about infrastructure at the state level. Project costs of big infrastructure projects, as well as inflation, mean that getting stuff done now is better and cheaper, usually, than waiting to do it in a few decades, or redoing it every few decades. State-level infrastructure investment doesn't have the same earnings potential as regular investment. It's practically all very long term, kind of by definition (if it were short term profitable, private investors would be all over it).
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    What's the problem with redoing it every few decades when you can deploy new more efficient technology, make profit on your investment and it is cheaper for the consumers? You do know that the full cost including investment for renewables with a 10-20 year ROI are about equal to what running paid off nuclear plant costs? Excluding the accident insurance [1] and decommissioning costs for nuclear power. A 90 year nuclear project compared to investing every 20 years in more efficient renewables mean: Assume a 20% ROI, which is very low but easy to calculate. Year 0: 100% in renewables Year 20: You have 120% to reinvest. You can now build 120% of renewables plus whatever efficiency gains we had in the last 20 years. Year 40: you have you have 144% of the original investment to deploy + 40 years of efficiency gains. Year 60: you have 173% of the original investment to deploy + 60 years of efficiency gains. Year 80: you have 207% of the original investment to deploy + 60 years of efficiency gains This is why building nuclear power with a 90 year pay off time is pure idiocy. Building renewables with a short pay off time led to us to have double the energy in 80 years time while also being able to deploy 80 years more modern technology. Maybe you should look up how compound interest works? [2] Why you do you keep suggesting the scenario where we simply lose money? Because you entwined your identity with a power source and are using you lack of understanding of economics to try justify it? Private investors are all over renewables? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... [2]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/compoundinterest.asp