Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build.
Comment on Not a single one
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Is this true? Because Holy shit this would be hilarious if it was.
red_tomato@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
fullsquare@awful.systems 4 weeks ago
they also last decades and are cheap to run with extremely low carbon emissions
LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Any source for this significant claim?
The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive:
base.bund.de/…/atomstrom-alternative-energiequell…
There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources:
diw.de/…/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_tech…
diw.de/…/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_…
At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage.
The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage!
crimson_iris@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage.
What do they say about Onkalo?
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I am open to change my mind on this, but i never seen evidence for a single one that was profitable when you include development cost, maintenance, build back and disposal (and long term maintenance of disposal).
fullsquare@awful.systems 4 weeks ago
most of costs are costs of construction. french and koreans don’t seem discouraged and some plants in japan and china were built under budget
LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
The costs of construction and deconstruction are significant. You cannot just ignore them. That is useless cherry picking.
GrayBackgroundMusic@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
open to change my mind on this
OK, here’s a starting point youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Ok i gave this the benefit of the doubt and watched the whole video.
Things there where not included in the calculation:
-
Cost of compensating for environmental destruction from uran mines (and health care costs for thost impacted by the radio active dust from them)
-
Political cost of importing fissile fuel from other nations (importing from russia/usa gives russia/usa leverage over you wich then can get expensive in other parts of the economy)
-
Cost at end of plant life cycle, aka building it back once the structure has aged beyond what maintenance can fix
-
Cost of storing and maintaining radio active waste for the next few million years
The video also only compares those selective picked numbers to fossil fuels and not things like solar or wind.
This video did not change my opinion, but thanks for suggesting it.
-
Gladaed@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Nuclear’s costs are primarily a capital cost issue. It takes so long to build a power plant that capital, interest and (?) utility of the investment grows to outrageous amounts.
Also you tend to not estimate the cost of waste handling since who knows what that’s going to cost.
maegul@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
I feel like the deeper truth highlighted here is that being pro-nuclear, or anti-anti-nuclear, is very much a “reddit” style opinion.
Whatever the actual truth is, that is. It seems to fall neatly into the “I know something and can make a ‘well actyooally’ argument about it” category without having expertise like being on top of the historical financial performance and context of the technology, about which I personally know nothing.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
You can cherry pick the numbers to show whatever you like.
Wikipedia has an article on the economics of nuclear power. To summarize: it’s expensive upfront. If you look at it from a pure commercial enterprise it’s not really worth it. If you look at it as decarbonizing the future it’s better.
Solar and wind is cheaper, but intermittent and it’s a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
Given the average time to build one single nuclear power plant, you should consider whether we have time to finish construction of one before we cook ourselves.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I would not put all my money on just one solution. I don’t know how many years away grid scale storage is. I hope it’s 1 year, I expect it’s a decade or more.
Besides, we had 6 consecutive weeks country wide harsh winter this year. Storing it over night, or over a few days of mild winds is feasible. 6 weeks of little to no sun, mild winds and high demand is eyepopping.
Gladaed@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Cheaper is the definition of better. Power is a fungible good. Price is what matters. And it’s not like they include the cost of waste handling in the price of nuclear energy. For simplicity it is easiest to assume it free. And it’s not like it would change the result of the calculus.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
A low maximum price is a better measurement of what is good.
We had 6 consecutive weeks of country wide harsh winter temperatures this year. Suddenly the fact that electricity was almost free and occasionally negative spot price during summer was irrelevant.