[eqvinox]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

The only thing more expensive than nuclear — in these stats at least — is small-scale solar installations.

Btw, this widespread (but wrong) belief that nuclear is cheap stems from the fact that a lot of countries heavily subsidized their nuclear industry in order to gain know-how and/or materials for atomic weapon production. It's not even cost-covering at current energy prices without those subsidies.

[KptMarchewa]

The _existing_ is the important part.

[esarbe]

Unfortunately, you cannot build an existing plant. You have to build a new one.

[eqvinox]

Funniest thing I've read this year so far, thanks ;D

[KptMarchewa]

You can do a lot of other stupid things, for example consider it EOL after very short time, like 40 years and close it though.

[esarbe]

Nuclear power is just too expensive. Look at France - the have 80% or so nuclear and all of their power companies run at a loss and have to be subsidized. Meanwhile in Germany wind and solar make a pretty good complement and are cheaper, even with storage included, which is mostly provided by Switzerland and Austria.

It's just not worth the hassle.

[ViewTrick1002]

Just need half a century of first construction and then amortizing the loans to get an existing paid off nuclear plant.

[KptMarchewa]

You need 0 years to construct an already existing plant, and would pay those loans either way.

[ViewTrick1002]

Of course, the issue is what you do when the said plant is EOL or you need more capacity. Can't expand capacity using existing plants.

[KptMarchewa]

Extend the life to 80 years.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re...

And fund the plants from budget, not commercial debt.

> "Governments can borrow much more cheaply that private companies and that lower cost of borrowing can drastically reduce the ultimate cost. Hinkley Point C would have been roughly half the cost if the government had been borrowing the money to build it at 2%, rather than EDF's cost of capital, which was 9%."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44363366

[ViewTrick1002]

You've now bought 20 years for the countries with an existing fleet.

Having governments finance the plants does not reduce the cost, it is a subsidy transferring the risk to the government with the taxpayers being on the hook instead of the banks.

The cost stemming from the project risk will not be realized until the construction goes over budget or fails, at which time the difference between the market rate and the government rate is realized by the tax payers.

What all this means is that the project's risk and cost is constant. You only transfer who pays for it. The public or the owner.

With Hinkley Point C looking to cost even more than €160/MWh over 35 years strike price they got that territory is being entered with bitter negotiations at the highest political level.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/16/edf-hinkley-...

[esarbe]

That's useless for extending capability.