[cbmuser]

Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s absolutely low risk because the electricity production can be sold years in advance if you want.

Nuclear electricity has the highest of all capacity factors and is therefore almost 100% planable, so there is virtually zero risk.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Very little in electricity generation has virtually zero risk.

Nuclear tends to have a higher capacity factor than most other baseload generators, but it also has unplanned outages.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45176

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_...

[jhgb]

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.

[natmaka]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/27/uks-nucl...

[splistud]

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.