Look i hate the man. But nuclear power is the best possible energy solution we have. Nuclear energy can fix all elecyricity related global warming issues we have in a reasonable acheivable world saving timeframe.
But here we are associating what could be earths only hope of stopping the climate fuckup with the molerat man.
New nuclear power is now significantly more expensive than renewables, and almost any other form of grid-scale electricity.
It’s also far, far, far too slow to build. If you started the consents process now, you might see it operational in 15 years.
Gigawatt-class units really don’t scale well in smaller power grids. It’s a pretty common rule in power engineering that you need enough spinning/fast reserves to cover the unexpected, instant loss of your largest generator or transmission line. That’s fine if you have a 100MW grid; not so great when there’s 10MW of load.
Small modular/meme reactors have thus far been rather disappointing.
Throw more solar, storage, and demand response at it with a side of synchronous condensers.
Do those cost calculations account for energy storage as well?
Yep. The latest CSIRO/AEMO report published this week addresses exactly this, with various levels of renewables penetration modelled, including associated firming costs (additional transmission & storage) Here’s an overview (spoiler: renewables are still cheaper by far.) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/nuclear-energy-most-expensive-csiro-gencost-report-draft/103253678?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link
If u go look at the spurce document and not a report on the document i found a couple interesting things.
- Risk profiles have not been considered due to renewables variation etc
- The nuclear costs are all based on one reactor from a single startup and overlooked the multitude of other reactors around the world at significantly better prices
- Renewables where assumed to go down in cost but we have seen that the cost of storage has actualy been rising recently
- Why does the IEA think nuclear is still cheaper?
Are you able to link the source document?
However, as an example of why nuclear is seen as risky, time-consuming and subject to massive cost blowout and time delays, see Flamanville 3 ( https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx Under “new nuclear capacity”)
It’s gone from being a project started in 2004 to build a 1650MWe plant costing 4.2 billion euros (in 2020 euros), to an estimated completion date of 2024, at 13.2 billion euros.
And this is France, a country that is very familiar and well-versed with building nuclear reactors.
Without the source document, this may well be the example you use from your 2nd bullet point. But I wouldn’t have called this a startup.
Here’s a link to the report from CSIRO: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Energy-data-modelling/GenCost
THEY FUCKING MISSED AN ENTIRE CLASS OF NUCLEAR REACTOR. They had one fucking job compare all the power options and they ignored any reactor that was not a small scallable bullshit silicon valley hyptrain piece of shit. This “unbiassed” report funded with million of dollars just happened to accidentally forget the cheapest and most economically efficient reactor design this is heigly sus and very much looks like it is purposefully misleading. I thought the CSIRO was unbiassed but this is an aggressiouse error that canot be overlooked.
