Comment by bryanlarsen

Comment by bryanlarsen 8 hours ago

6 replies

A nuclear fission power plant is never going to be cheaper than a coal plant, and coal plants are very expensive. They're superficially similar types of plants: they heat water and then use a steam turbine to convert it to electricity. Coal plants use higher temperatures and pressures, so they can use smaller turbines. That turbine is a massive part of the cost.

Yes, there's room to drive down the cost of nuclear. No, it's never going to be cost competitive with solar/wind/batteries, no matter how much you drive down the cost or eliminate regulations.

beeflet 8 hours ago

It can be cheaper to run a nuclear plant than a conventional power plant, due to lower fuel costs. But what kills nuclear is the capital costs of building the plant. It takes a while to reap the reward

  • bryanlarsen 8 hours ago

    I'm talking about capital costs, not operating costs. $3B/GW for a coal plant is about 5X as much as natgas.

  • s1mplicissimus 7 hours ago

    Does that calculation include the cost of storing the nuclear waste after use? I'd be curious to see a reference for your claim.

    • epistasis 6 hours ago

      Dry casting on site is fairly cheap.

      The true cost of nuclear is the massive construction cost. We don't know how to solve that.

    • Llamamoe 6 hours ago

      You need to look up how much nuclear waste is actually produced. It's a minuscule amount relative to the energy produced, and it doesn't actually need more than to be transported and then encased in concrete.

      • Jedd 4 hours ago

        It's not the volume of the waste that's the challenge - it's handling and storage that remain mostly unsolved.

        By unsolved I mean - not convincingly solved, and certainly not yet tested over the expected duration that material needs to be safely contained.