3 ms·
> Recycling plutonium from spent power reactor fuel into mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel has been economically unattractive everywhere it has been implemented.
by CGMthrowaway 1y ago
> Recycling plutonium from spent power reactor fuel into mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel has been economically unattractive everywhere it has been implemented.
All it takes to change that is a federal subsidy supporting the industry. The same was said about wind & solar until it wasn't (due to tax credits). Now that the credits are going away with BBB, the cost of every new utility-scale development just went up ~30% and many, many projects will be killed.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoWind and solar are still competitive without the credits, and while it'd be great to keep the credits to get off of fossil fuels faster, they are no longer needed. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electricity-beats-lowest-cost-fossil-fuel-even-without-tax-credits/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/01/solar-cost-of-electri... > Lazard’s analysis of levelized cost of electricity across fuel types finds that new-build utility-scale solar, even without subsidy, is less costly than new build natural gas, and competes with already-operating gas plants. > Despite the blow that tax credit repeal would deal to renewable energy project values, analysis from Lazard finds that solar and wind energy projects have a lower levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) than nearly all fossil fuel projects – even without subsidy. (Lazard is the investment banking gold standard wrt clean energy cost modeling: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...)
- CGMthrowaway 1y agoAs someone in solar I can tell you unless you are O&O/IPP it is not profitable to build without credits, no matter what an investment bank says
- quickthrowman 1y agoDoes Lazard make money from putting together financing and investment for solar and wind projects? If the answer is yes, that is precisely what I would expect them to say, given their incentives.
- Matticus_Rex 1y agoWhy do that when safely storing the waste takes up an incredibly tiny amount of space and costs much less? And subsidizing this still won't make new nuclear particularly competitive without ditching the silly LNT harm model and killing ALARA at the regulatory level. If you do that, suddenly nuclear can be profitable (as it should be in a world where the AEC and NRC approached radiation harm risk with actual science).
- pstuart 1y agoApparently nuclear waste storage is easier said than done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- Matticus_Rex 1y agoPolitically, yes. Anything nuclear is easier said than done for political reasons.
- pstuart 1y agoI'd like to see nuclear be (safely) viable, which to me means SMRs or go home. Even SMRs can't compete on price along - current estimate (per the Goog): SMRs: SMR LCOE range from $80-$90/MWh. Renewables: Solar and wind LCOE can range from $20-$50/MWh, with some estimates even lower. Yes, having "guaranteed" output has value, but I'm of an age where I can remember the promise of "power too cheap to meter"
- Matticus_Rex 1y agoThose cost estimates factor in ALARA and the LNT model assumptions, which drastically raise costs far beyond what's needed for safety. If the NRC dropped those and moved to a SNT dose-harm model, that drops costs radically.