|
|
|
|
|
|
by skitout
1463 days ago
|
|
|
Page 19 shows that nuclear power is less competitive than coal or gas (and vastly less competitive than large wind and solar- before taking in consideration the cost associate with intermittence) The book you mention talk about nuclear weapons New nuclear technologies will probably reduce the delay and decrease the cost. But 1) design are not ready and tested yet 2) there is a huge uncertainty about how much it will cut time and price. This happen while 1) we have proven cheap and working renewable energies, and proven storage technologies (electrical, and thermal) with fast decreasing cost 2) We are sure that wind, solar and storage will see their cost continue decreasing |
|
|
I took a low-high range of $24-$33/MWh for nuclear to be less than $37-$47 (coal) and competitive with $19-$29 (gas combined cycle).
Including capital costs, the nuclear cost is much higher which is why technologies are being developed to reduce the initial costs (hence the reference to Thorcon). I am not sure how fast renewables + storage will become viable for baseload, compared to alternative nuclear technologies, so I can make no comment on that.
Sorry - I got mixed up on the book reference - this one - https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/1098308... or this podcast - https://anchor.fm/chris15401/episodes/Why-Nuclear-Energy-Has...