4 ms·

All you are saying is that you don't understand the time value of money. What you are saying is that we should waste money on enormous handouts to the nuclear

All you are saying is that you don't understand the time value of money. What you are saying is that we should waste money on enormous handouts to the nuclear industry today to get a tiny bit back in 60 years time. Making us poorer for generations. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp Base load exists on the consumer/demand side. Base load power plants has always been an economic construct. Inflexible coal and nuclear power used to have the lowest marginal costs and high fixed costs and therefore could expect to run at 100% 24/7. That is not the case anymore since zero marginal cost renewables have entered the market. https://reneweconomy.com.au/there-is-no-going-back-aemo-bids-goodbye-to-baseload-grid-and-spins-high-renewable-future/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/there-is-no-going-back-aemo-bids... And "nuclear is worthwhile because we can cause inflation" is literally the least logical argument I have heard in a long time. You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we need to handout untold trillions to the nuclear industry and is now trying to rationalize your position.

UltraSane 1y ago
Nuclear plants have high capital costs but extremely low operating costs once built. The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) calculations that discount future cash flows still show nuclear becoming highly competitive over extended lifespans because the fuel costs remain so low.The claim about 26-year average operating life is misleading because it includes many plants shut down prematurely for political reasons, not economic ones. Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years. The discount rate argument cuts both ways. While future revenues are discounted, so are future costs including decommissioning, waste storage, and replacement generation capacity. When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably On baseload the grid still requires inertia, frequency regulation, and firm capacity. While renewables provide energy, they don't inherently provide these grid services. The costs of synthetic inertia, grid-forming inverters, and massive overbuild/curtailment to achieve reliable capacity aren't captured in simple LCOE comparisons. The CSIRO report's 10% figure assumes a specific discount rate and doesn't account for carbon pricing, grid stability services, or land use constraints that become critical at high renewable penetrations. Real-world grids like France (70% nuclear) demonstrate sustained low electricity costs over decades, while high-renewable grids like Germany and California show increasing costs and reliability challenges. The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge. You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  You seem to be operating on data that is decades old at this point? Maybe read a bit on the subject? The operational costs are actually quite high for nuclear power. Generally around $32/MWh. [1] That is equivalent to the all-in cost for a new built solar plant. The solar plant will then produce zero marginal cost electricity. Meaning, the nuclear plant can't rely on operating at 100% 24/7 anymore since they are outcompeted. We already see this happening in Australia, Germany etc. where previous "baseload" coal plants are forced to become peakers. Shutting down daily because there are no takers for their electricity when zero marginal cost renewables deliver. [2] This is also starting to happen across Europe. When the Iberian blackout happened 1 reactor was out for scheduled maintenance and the equivalent to the capacity from two more was voluntarily withdrawn from the grid due to "market conditions. > Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years. So if we exclude all reactors which were decommissioned due to technical issues, economical issues etc. we can cherry pick the ones which survived. You went straight into survivorship bias. Please bring back the logic to this discussion. You seem to have left it at the door. > When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably They don't. Storage is absolutely plummeting in price with the latest auctions in China landing on $63/kWh serviced for 20 years. [3] Then we have comprehensive grid modeling: See the recent study [4] on Denmark which 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. > Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems. > 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. Or the same for Australia if you went a more sunny locale finding that renewables ends up with a grid costing less than half of "best case nth of a kind nuclear power". Including transmission, synchronous condensers and firming. [5] > land use constraints Which is already included in the price for renewables. The day we have land use constraints in a location that isn't a city state lets solve it. > The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge. You are trying to equate nuclear power to infrastructure because it simply does not make sense compared to renewables and storage. You can make the exact same calculation for renewables, pick solar panels with 40 year lifetimes, batteries optimized for cycle count if "lifetime" is the most central metric. We don't because it doesn't make sense, and you know it. > You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture. Yes. We kickstarted the renewable industry, at the same time as we gave absolutely bonkers large handouts to the nuclear industry kicking off Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and the host of plants cancelled during planning. Today we are phasing out renewable subsidies because they aren't needed anymore. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and will thus over time replace them in our global energy grid. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant-in-extraordinary-survival-experiment/104461504 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant... [3]: https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-announces-winning-bidders-in-10-gwh-bess-tender/ https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-an... [4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... [5]: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...

UltraSane 1y ago

Nuclear plants have high capital costs but extremely low operating costs once built. The LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) calculations that discount future cash flows still show nuclear becoming highly competitive over extended lifespans because the fuel costs remain so low.The claim about 26-year average operating life is misleading because it includes many plants shut down prematurely for political reasons, not economic ones. Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years. The discount rate argument cuts both ways. While future revenues are discounted, so are future costs including decommissioning, waste storage, and replacement generation capacity. When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably On baseload the grid still requires inertia, frequency regulation, and firm capacity. While renewables provide energy, they don't inherently provide these grid services. The costs of synthetic inertia, grid-forming inverters, and massive overbuild/curtailment to achieve reliable capacity aren't captured in simple LCOE comparisons. The CSIRO report's 10% figure assumes a specific discount rate and doesn't account for carbon pricing, grid stability services, or land use constraints that become critical at high renewable penetrations. Real-world grids like France (70% nuclear) demonstrate sustained low electricity costs over decades, while high-renewable grids like Germany and California show increasing costs and reliability challenges. The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge. You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
You seem to be operating on data that is decades old at this point? Maybe read a bit on the subject? The operational costs are actually quite high for nuclear power. Generally around $32/MWh. [1] That is equivalent to the all-in cost for a new built solar plant. The solar plant will then produce zero marginal cost electricity. Meaning, the nuclear plant can't rely on operating at 100% 24/7 anymore since they are outcompeted. We already see this happening in Australia, Germany etc. where previous "baseload" coal plants are forced to become peakers. Shutting down daily because there are no takers for their electricity when zero marginal cost renewables deliver. [2] This is also starting to happen across Europe. When the Iberian blackout happened 1 reactor was out for scheduled maintenance and the equivalent to the capacity from two more was voluntarily withdrawn from the grid due to "market conditions. > Currently operating US reactors average over 40 years and many are getting 20-year license extensions to 60+ years. So if we exclude all reactors which were decommissioned due to technical issues, economical issues etc. we can cherry pick the ones which survived. You went straight into survivorship bias. Please bring back the logic to this discussion. You seem to have left it at the door. > When you properly account for the full system costs of replacing ~90% capacity factor nuclear with variable renewables plus storage/transmission/backup, the economics shift considerably They don't. Storage is absolutely plummeting in price with the latest auctions in China landing on $63/kWh serviced for 20 years. [3] Then we have comprehensive grid modeling: See the recent study [4] on Denmark which 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. > Focusing on the case of Denmark, this article investigates a future fully sector-coupled energy system in a carbon-neutral society and compares the operation and costs of renewables and nuclear-based energy systems. > 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. Or the same for Australia if you went a more sunny locale finding that renewables ends up with a grid costing less than half of "best case nth of a kind nuclear power". Including transmission, synchronous condensers and firming. [5] > land use constraints Which is already included in the price for renewables. The day we have land use constraints in a location that isn't a city state lets solve it. > The government regularly funds long-term infrastructure with decades-long payback periods - highways, bridges, airports. Nuclear reactors are strategic energy infrastructure with 60-80 year lifespans no different to a bridge. You are trying to equate nuclear power to infrastructure because it simply does not make sense compared to renewables and storage. You can make the exact same calculation for renewables, pick solar panels with 40 year lifetimes, batteries optimized for cycle count if "lifetime" is the most central metric. We don't because it doesn't make sense, and you know it. > You complain about "handouts" to the nuclear industry but renewable subsidies per MWh have been substantial, and nuclear provides energy security benefits that pure market calculations don't capture. Yes. We kickstarted the renewable industry, at the same time as we gave absolutely bonkers large handouts to the nuclear industry kicking off Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and the host of plants cancelled during planning. Today we are phasing out renewable subsidies because they aren't needed anymore. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and will thus over time replace them in our global energy grid. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant-in-extraordinary-survival-experiment/104461504 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant... [3]: https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-announces-winning-bidders-in-10-gwh-bess-tender/ https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-an... [4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... [5]: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...