| > During the ten years it takes to build a nuke, 100% of the power it is hoped to displace is supplied by fossil fuel. By comparison gas turbines will always emit carbon dioxide, and there's no realistic plan to run a solar and wind grid without fossil fuel backing. No, there is no realistic plan to store electricity despite your incessant insistence to the contrary. > The thousands of tons of concrete are produced by cooking limestone with, again, fossil fuel. And the thousands of tons of steel are refined and smelted with, again, fossil fuel. Both of these can be replaced with thermochemical processes powered by nuclear power. > Most of a nuke plants' cost is in construction, but that is not because its operating cost is low. It is just insanely expensive to build. Then, its operating cost is high. Incorrect, nuclear power is quite cheap once the plants are constructed. |
Nuclear power operating cost is about commensurate with fossil fuels, which are not competitive. Operating at 50% rated power makes each kWh, marginally, twice as costly. Operating at 50% rated power long term makes each kWh absolutely twice as costly.
At the time when their power cannot be sold at any price sufficient to continue operating, nukes not propped up by tax coercion will be mothballed. Their huge construction cost will end up amortized over only the kWh produced up to that time. So, the finally recognized cost per kWh will balloon to many times over what was promised at construction time.