• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    You always needed a way to show that people would pay the long term prices necessary to cover the cost of construction.

    Not when the federal government was just building them to generate fissile material and giving the electricity away after that.

    There’s less room to make money because nuclear is expensive

    Upfront costs are expensive. But operational and fuel costs are very low, per MWh. Long term, nuclear is cheaper.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Upfront costs are expensive. But operational and fuel costs are very low, per MWh.

      So take the upfront costs at the beginning and the decommissioning costs at the end, and amortize them over the expected lifespan of the plant, and add that to the per MWh cost. When you do that, the nuclear plants built this century are nowhere near competitive. Vogtle cost $35 billion to add 2 gigawatts of capacity, and obviously any plant isn’t going to run at full capacity all the time. As a result, Georgia’s ratepayers have been eating the cost with a series of price hikes ($700+ million per year in rate increases) as the new Vogtle reactors went online. Plus the plant owners had to absorb some of the costs, as did Westinghouse in bankruptcy. And that’s all with $12 billion in federal taxpayer guarantees.

      NuScale just canceled their SMR project in Idaho because their customers in Utah refused to fund the cost overruns there.

      Maybe Kairos will do better. But the track record of nuclear hasn’t been great.

      And all the while, wind and solar are much, much cheaper, so there’s less buffer for nuclear to find that sweet spot that actually works economically.