At this point nuclear is the most expensive per mw. And the vast majority of that expense is upfront. So almost no one wants to invest in these things because they're incredibly risky.
Cost should always be a consideration, but when you see people conveniently ignore some costs and focus on others, it does a disservice to the goal of decarbonizing the grid and it isn't clear what they are really trying to accomplish.
The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is about as high as nuclear, but that cost doesn't seem to matter to some advocates and they continue to strongly support subsidizing it.
The potential costs for renewables + storage is about the cost of nuclear, but that cost also doesn't matter to some advocates. (If grid storage was cheap, we would have built it decades ago.)
Some advocates recommend massively overbuilding solar or wind to deal with seasonal differences. This is obviously at least a direct cost multiplier but that doesn't seem to matter to some advocates.
Advocates also describe how we will rebuild the electrical grid to move vast amounts of solar or wind power across the USA. This will not be cheap, simple or easy to protect against terrorism. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amigas super station hasn’t been completed yet. The potential costs here don't seem to matter to some advocates.
Some advocates for renewables seem happy with relying on natural gas peaker plants where necessary to get around the costs of building grid storage, but methane is a very potent GHG in the short term. (There are lots of atmospheric losses in the capture and distribution of natural gas.) No one concerned about climate change seriously thinks that burning natural gas is a long term answer.
Nuclear is risky?? I've heard the opposite, nuclear power plants tend to be extremely safe. You probably think it's risky because of 2 or 3 large scale accidents in the last 50 years or so. While those have a large impact, I don't think I would consider nuclear "extremely risky" just because of those.
I think they mean from the standpoint of it being a major financial investment with a non-negligible risk of project-failure subject to political whims and a high likelihood of significant cost overruns. I'd love to see some subsidies to address those issues though.
The biggest risk I've seen is that unanticipated events (including financial events) will completely shutter a unit, like San Onofre and Indian Point 2.
If your average cost overrun is around 100%, then it absolutely is financially risky. And selling years in advance is not just possible but necessary for nuclear plants - people would never agree on such prices 10-20 years from now so the have to be locked in even as the plant is being built.
Some real costs are hardly predictable: hot waste long-term management, decommission (see the UK case) and especially any boo-boo (Fukushima cleanup costs will be in the ~500bn USD range) do threaten the financial model.
By all means go to current financial markets and ask for huge loans in this low-interest-rate high-inflation market. It isn't even about risk (though risks caused by regulation/government oversight are manifold). It's about return, or the lack thereof.
...in 2012 value of GBP. Right now the inflation-adjusted value is something like 112 GBP per MWh or so. You'll have to do the math yourself for future inflation.
Also the spot price remaining like this for the next 35 years is obviously out of question. These levels of prices will attract investments in generator technologies that can be scaled up very quickly.
The levelized cost for residential rooftop solar is about as high as nuclear, but that cost doesn't seem to matter to some advocates and they continue to strongly support subsidizing it.
The potential costs for renewables + storage is about the cost of nuclear, but that cost also doesn't matter to some advocates. (If grid storage was cheap, we would have built it decades ago.)
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
Some advocates recommend massively overbuilding solar or wind to deal with seasonal differences. This is obviously at least a direct cost multiplier but that doesn't seem to matter to some advocates.
Advocates also describe how we will rebuild the electrical grid to move vast amounts of solar or wind power across the USA. This will not be cheap, simple or easy to protect against terrorism. Even the relatively small proposed Tres Amigas super station hasn’t been completed yet. The potential costs here don't seem to matter to some advocates.
Some advocates for renewables seem happy with relying on natural gas peaker plants where necessary to get around the costs of building grid storage, but methane is a very potent GHG in the short term. (There are lots of atmospheric losses in the capture and distribution of natural gas.) No one concerned about climate change seriously thinks that burning natural gas is a long term answer.