4 ms·

Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe

by amarant 6mo ago

Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe as "Represents illustrative LCOE values for Vogtle nuclear plant’s units 3 and 4" Your source doesn't even support your statement! As for Hinckley, I have 2 objections. A you have cherry picked the least cost effective reactor in the world, and are trying to pass it off as typical, and B, it's levelized cost of energy is £128/MWh which translates to €146. Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH. Unfortunately the anti-nuclear crowd in Europe has a very loose relationship with reality, but I think it's only prudent we stick to actual numbers here on HN. Relevant excerpt from the Wikipedia article: For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), based on undisclosed portfolio of projects, estimated nuclear power LCOE at €190-375/MWh which is up to 900% higher than the published LCOE of €30/MWh for an actual existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, even after accounting for construction delays in OL3 block, although this number is based on an average LCOE with new and old reactors. My data might be old, but at least it isn't made up!

ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked? > The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation. 97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have: 2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114 Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity. EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds. And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics. And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out? > Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH. You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating. The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost. Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out. Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building. Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost? Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C. EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s. Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme? - The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B - The state takes all financial and construction risk - The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant. How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?
- amarant 6mo ago
  Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time? Stop and think about that argument for a second
  - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
    I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture. You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is? The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh. Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
    - amarant 6mo ago
      Are you ever going to produce a source that backs up any of your statements? Read the Wikipedia article, that's the minimum amount of research required for any subject. Instead you've cited a lobby groups "illustrative numbers", and even misrepresented them!
      - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
        Sorry it was €60 per MWh, I suppose 65 is the number in USD. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-unveils-forecast-nuclear-power-costs-over-period-2026-2040.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality. What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space. And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent. It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive. You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.

by amarant 6mo ago

ViewTrick1002 6mo ago

Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked? > The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation. 97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have: 2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114 Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity. EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds. And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics. And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out? > Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH. You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating. The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost. Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out. Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building. Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost? Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C. EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s. Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme? - The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B - The state takes all financial and construction risk - The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant. How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?

amarant 6mo ago
Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time? Stop and think about that argument for a second
- ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
  I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture. You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is? The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh. Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
  - amarant 6mo ago
    Are you ever going to produce a source that backs up any of your statements? Read the Wikipedia article, that's the minimum amount of research required for any subject. Instead you've cited a lobby groups "illustrative numbers", and even misrepresented them!
    - ViewTrick1002 6mo ago
      Sorry it was €60 per MWh, I suppose 65 is the number in USD. https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/frances-cre-unveils-forecast-nuclear-power-costs-over-period-2026-2040.html https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran... I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality. What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space. And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent. It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive. You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.