|
|
|
|
|
by ncmncm
1417 days ago
|
|
No cement or steel process, over the 60+ years nukes have operated, has been switched over to nuke-powered. There is no reason to think any will be. 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. |
|
Isn't this also a barrier to building hydroelectric facilities? They're basically big dams.
Also you believe we'll be able to create massive electrolysis plants to create energy storage for solar and wind? Interesting how you're so confident in massive changes to industrial processes when solar and wind require them, but totally dismissive when other solutions do.
Regardless, metallurgy and cement just need a source of heat and unlike solar and wind which need to convert electricity to heat nuclear plants produce heat directly.