No, not debatable, nuclear is cheaper once infrastructure is paid off. Much cheaper with SMRs on new builds. Darlington was recently expanded with SMRs.
Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or €5,310 per kW of capacity.[28] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity.
@CyberEgg@SaveTheTuaHawk
Which calculations are you referring to?
Nuclear waste disposal/storage is unavoidably accounted for in France as it is part of the budget and the responsibility of the generators of the waste themselves.
The calculations of operating and maintenance cost. I have yet to see calculations of those where the cost of waste disposal and management is listed. It’s not a small factor, in Germany it costs around 1 billion anually after the end of nuclear, plus the ongoing search for a permanent storage site.
Also, this is about Germany, not France. But since you bring up France, what are the betting odds for how many NPPs are going to be shut down this summer due to overheating river systems? How much are the cost of downtime, the environmental damge done to these rivers etc?
Wrong. Nuclear phase out in Germany was decided first years before Fukushima.
By the Greens, in a way that could be and was undone. Merkel committed the majority to it.
How come waste disposal/storage is never accounted for in these calculations?
Permanent waste disposal is unnecessary. Keep doing what we do now and temporarily store it for the forseeable future.
Ironically there would be no global warming if we had fully switched to nuclear energy in th 70ies. In a way, the Greens fought for the destruction of the environment.
Don’t blame the Greens for climate change you dishonest nuisance.
Do you think the Greens are different than the SPD who sold out the worker protection? With cheap nuclear energy we could have had electrical cars in the 70ies. Not going fully nuclear is the reason that electricity was not so cheap that people started buying electric cars.
The nuisance is that there is no rational reason for the Greens to be against nuclear energy unless they were influenced by the oil industry.
No, the nusance is a Russia luldefender smearing shit and blame over everything but the actual facts and derailing any discussion. I really don’t know why I haven’t blocked you yet and I correct that mistake now.
, nuclear is cheaper once infrastructure is paid off.
The marginal costs for renewables - that is the cost of producing one more MWh if the plant is up and running - is zero. With merit-order pricing, this is their market price. Nuclear cannot compete with that price. Also, while wind energy provides cheap base load, solar electricity production matches the daily demand curve very well. Because of this, it needs less of relatively expensive storage. It was never the plan to use pure nuclear power - that would have been way to expensive. It was always only meant for base load, which is a small fraction of the daily peaks or the daily average demand. Because of that, it was never planned to replace most fossil energy with nuclear - it would have been way too expensive. Nuclear was touted as cheap base load, remember?
Germany’s problem is an entirely different one: Consevative goverments have deliberately obstructed and hampered the extension of renewable energy and power networks. This still needs to happen, and is costing money now. And the conservative government, again, lowers prices and network fees for big companies, and charges citizens for that. That’s why it is expensive.
No, not debatable, nuclear is cheaper once infrastructure is paid off. Much cheaper with SMRs on new builds. Darlington was recently expanded with SMRs.
Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3, which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only 3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or €5,310 per kW of capacity.[28] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Germany shit their pants after Fukushima and knee jerked to shut down nuclear. How many Tsunami’s have hit Germany?
Wrong. Nuclear phase out in Germany was decided first years before Fukushima.
How come waste disposal/storage is never accounted for in these calculations?
@CyberEgg @SaveTheTuaHawk
Which calculations are you referring to?
Nuclear waste disposal/storage is unavoidably accounted for in France as it is part of the budget and the responsibility of the generators of the waste themselves.
The calculations of operating and maintenance cost. I have yet to see calculations of those where the cost of waste disposal and management is listed. It’s not a small factor, in Germany it costs around 1 billion anually after the end of nuclear, plus the ongoing search for a permanent storage site.
Also, this is about Germany, not France. But since you bring up France, what are the betting odds for how many NPPs are going to be shut down this summer due to overheating river systems? How much are the cost of downtime, the environmental damge done to these rivers etc?
By the Greens, in a way that could be and was undone. Merkel committed the majority to it.
Permanent waste disposal is unnecessary. Keep doing what we do now and temporarily store it for the forseeable future.
Ironically there would be no global warming if we had fully switched to nuclear energy in th 70ies. In a way, the Greens fought for the destruction of the environment.
Any law can be undone and no policiy is safe from a power shift.
Don’t blame the Greens for climate change you dishonest nuisance.
Nuclear was never the answer, just different problems.
A main driver of climate change is the meat industry btw. How would nuclear change that?
Do you think the Greens are different than the SPD who sold out the worker protection? With cheap nuclear energy we could have had electrical cars in the 70ies. Not going fully nuclear is the reason that electricity was not so cheap that people started buying electric cars.
The nuisance is that there is no rational reason for the Greens to be against nuclear energy unless they were influenced by the oil industry.
No, the nusance is a Russia luldefender smearing shit and blame over everything but the actual facts and derailing any discussion. I really don’t know why I haven’t blocked you yet and I correct that mistake now.
The marginal costs for renewables - that is the cost of producing one more MWh if the plant is up and running - is zero. With merit-order pricing, this is their market price. Nuclear cannot compete with that price. Also, while wind energy provides cheap base load, solar electricity production matches the daily demand curve very well. Because of this, it needs less of relatively expensive storage. It was never the plan to use pure nuclear power - that would have been way to expensive. It was always only meant for base load, which is a small fraction of the daily peaks or the daily average demand. Because of that, it was never planned to replace most fossil energy with nuclear - it would have been way too expensive. Nuclear was touted as cheap base load, remember?
Germany’s problem is an entirely different one: Consevative goverments have deliberately obstructed and hampered the extension of renewable energy and power networks. This still needs to happen, and is costing money now. And the conservative government, again, lowers prices and network fees for big companies, and charges citizens for that. That’s why it is expensive.