Economics of Nuclear Reactor

[nuclear license to print money] ▶ this video "Jetzt müssen RWE und Co. die ausgedienten Gelddruckmaschinen sicher abwickeln." But that was the well-known pro nuclear lobby group...greenpeace. link "Atomkraftwerke sind Gelddruckmaschinen." But that was the well-known pro nuclear lobbyist...Jürgen Trittin link Anyway, you are just regurgitating the same old counter-factual nonsense as before, and the irrelevant "but China is also building renewables". Once again: nuclear and renewables are only a contradiction in the minds of anti-nuclear advocates. Industrial nations do both . > Plan to build 6 then 8 more EPR2 → "only a plan" That is incorrect. As stated before, the approvals are being sought, 3 sites have been selected and multi-billion € contracts have been awarded. > Sites have been selected for the first 6 link > [engineering contracts] → long road ahead Newsflash: yes, nuclear power plants are big. Once again: if multi-billion contracts are "nothing", please give some of that "nothing". I will send you my bank details. Apologies about pointing at Mitterand, that was incorrect. I meant Hollande. link Translation: 'Green cabal paralyzes the nuclear industry’ link

For anyone interested in the economics of fission reactors, Illinois Energy Prof did a GREAT video a while back: ▶ this video

That turns out not to be true. Here a short primer on the economics of nuclear reactors: ▶ this video Intermittent renewables on the other hand require massive subsidies.

>> Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used > Not if you consider the full costs. Yes, in fact it is one of the few (maybe only?) electricity source that accounts for full costs. Fossil fuels deposit their waste in the atmosphere, renewables are heavily subsidized and their environmental damage generally isn't included either. > No nuclear power plant that I have found documentation for anywhere is operated without immense national subsidies. Citation needed. > You mention Hinkley point and say that they will generate 150 billion euros in income over 80 years. Incorrect. That is one reactor of HPC. Both together would be € 300 billion if they continue to get the agreed price, which I don't think they will. > The storage facility will likely be Sellafield, which has a yearly budget of around 2.5 billion per year, times 80 years is 200 billion Not only do you only take the output of just one reactor when there are two, you require that one reactor to finance all of Sellafield, a facility that serves the entire country. The UK has more than one reactor. link > Yes, and [EDF] did [go bankrupt], a few years ago. No they did not. The French state, which never owned less than 84% of EDF, bough the remaining 16% stake to simplify the planned nuclear expansion. > EDF was unprofitable even when they neglected required repairs and maintenance. The opposite was true. EDF was and continues to be immensely profitable over the last few decades, despite being milked d

> I have the same feeling but opposite. The problem is that this is just a feeling. The bigger problem is that this feeling is still extremely widespread, completely contrary to the facts. For example... > Nuclear energy has never been profitable anywhere in the world to date This is completely false. Nuclear energy is profitable pretty much everywhere it is used. Almost obscenely profitable, if you are allowed to run the plants. I ran the numbers for Hinkley Point C. At the rate they negotiated (14,8 Cents/kWh...or was it pence?) the profits are almost obscene. A modern EPR will generate 1040 TWh of electricity over its lifetime, assuming 80 years operation and 90% capacity factor. Assuming the EDF-negotiated price is 14,8 cents, that's a cool € 150 billion worth of electricity. But that's just one reactor, whereas HPC is two. So € 300 billion. Puts even the completely ridiculous cost overruns for those two reactors into perspective, doesn't it? China built their two EPRs for a total of $7.5 billion, and with the EPR2, EDF is pretty certain to get construction times and costs. Here's an explainer of the economics. ▶ this video The annual reports for one of the Swiss plants are online. They produce electricity for 3-5 cents. Profitably. In Switzerland. And they have expenses like...oh...a new administrative building in one year. Switzerland is not cheap. > has entirely disproportionate downsides What are those "entirely disproportionate downsides", in your opinion? If you subtract

Yeah the pay back time is long but the cost of operation is so much lower than traditional fuels. It will pay off if it remains running for long enough. ▶ this video

Overview of the economics of a nuclear reactor: ▶ this video Duration: 23 min Speaker: David Ruzic, Prof of Nuclear Engineering at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

> Why are you choosing a meaningless metric to decide on the technology? Learn to express yourself better. It's like building a house - your first choice is what ground you build it on - quick sands, swamp, or solid rock. If you don't take power density into consideration you're not going to make the right choice and then all your efforts will be meaningless. Denmark is almost 100% renewable (it imports some). France is 70% nuclear (net exporter). Denmark household pays 170.5% more than french household. link Here's a lecture on nuclear economics ▶ this video

> is it going to be the catalyst that will enable humanity to accelerate wreaking havoc on what's left of our ecosystems? The question is how cheap can it get, can the energy production scale up vs cost, and how much does maintenance cost. This is a good video about fission energy production economics ▶ this video If one of these fusion reactor projects results in a competitively priced power plant, ok, we can reduce fossil fuel energy production towards zero in a few decades. That's pretty good for the environment but nothing really "new" is possible. If one of these fusion reactor projects results in a 10x reduction in the cost of electricity... then we have something new. Things that people didn't imagine being possible before become possible. Things like desalination instead of taking water from rivers or aquifers because it's cheaper. Tearing down dams because the power isn't needed. "Farms" in skyscrapers packed with artificial light where food can be produced without pesticides or herbicides because it's a controlled environment. Using landfills like mines, extracting tiny amounts of useful materials so ordinary mining becomes much less needed. You can also think of plenty of things cheap plentiful energy could make happen that are destructive too... it is difficult to project and I assume will go in both directions.

In the short term nuclear is undoubtedly expensive, but when the debt from construction is payed off, it becomes an incredibly cheap and reliable source of energy. ▶ this video

Nuclear is expensive in the short term and remarkably cheap in the long run. ▶ this video That said the more intermittent ambient energy is on the grid the more difficult it is for nuclear to operate 24/7, which makes it take longer for nuclear to go from expensive to cheap.

In the short term nuclear energy is expensive, but in the long term nuclear energy is one the cheapest sources of energy available. Source - ▶ this video (this is even more true when you consider the cost of externalities)

Waste disposal or reprocessing are neglectible if you keep in mind that a single nuclear reactor produces electricity worth over one million US Dollars per day. See: ▶ this video

Hi, I just watched this video that some other commenter posted ▶ this video Where is this prof getting it wrong by a factor of 100? What is he leaving out?

You should watch this video (and several others) of this professor, David Ruzic from Uni of Illinois This video he talks about the economics of nuclear plant. ▶ this video This video, he talks about modular micro-nuclear reactor link His videos are great. Worth your time.

Here's a video where an energy professor goes through the finances of gas vs nuclear power (very slowly) - ▶ this video In short, it takes a very long time for a nuclear power plant to become profitable. Investors would rather pick something like gas that starts being profitable earlier, so they have the profits available to reinvest into other enterprises. I think this, rather than public perception, is why we don't do nuclear power (after all, our society does plenty of other things despite similar levels of outcry).

The economics of nuclear are good but not as good as you're implying. It takes a long time and a lot of money to start earning on a nuclear plant. Given the risks involved it's not that easy to build one. ▶ this video I don't think firing nuclear waste into space would be wise either. The risk of that blowing up on launch is high and the fall out from that would be a disaster.