[Retric]

Nuclear is inherently expensive even with zero regulations you have the full costs of a coal power plant + more expensive lifetime costs for fuel + extra costs associated with nuclear such as more and more highly educated workers.

Meanwhile coal is dead because it’s already more expensive than the market is willing to accept.

The only hope for nuclear is massive subsidies, deregulation on its own isn’t going to work.

[jeltz]

How come Sweden as cheap nuclear power? The main reason electricity is kinda expensive in Sweden is because the EU forces is to export our cheap nuclear energy to Denmark and Germany.

[ViewTrick1002]

Paid off nuclear plants produce quite cheap electricity. The problem is that it takes 10-15 years of building and then 40 years of paying $180-220/MWh to get a paid off nuclear plant as per modern western construction costs.

[Retric]

In terms of pure operating costs ignoring everything else it can look good vs other sources that include all costs.

However, ‘Paid off nuclear’ in terms of construction costs still needs to worry about decommissioning, and their maintenance costs keep increasing every year.

Several power plants have looked at going offline for potentially years and spending billions at around year 40 to get to year ~60 as not being worth the investment. That’s the issue with projecting those long lifespans, the buildings/containment structure/cooling tower may be fine but that doesn’t mean the pipes, pumps, turbines, and control systems etc are still fine.

[janc_]

And don't forget the cost of storing nuclear waste for the next 10000 years, which is never included in the "cost of nuclear".

[nandomrumber]

What nuclear waste? Where is it?

Somebody must be able to point to the nuclear waste by now. There it is, waving frantically in panic, the nuclear waste! It’s coming right for us!

Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time.

But never both highly radioactive and for a long time.

In reality, there is so little nuclear waste that most of it has mostly been stored on site where it was generated, taking up less space than any grid scale solar or wind.

[Retric]

I don’t think nuclear waste is a huge deal, but it does increase fuel costs in a very meaningful way. The classic uranium is cheap therefore nuclear’s fuel is cheap is a tiny fraction of the story. Refueling generally means weeks of downtime, you can’t safely operate at extreme temperatures for maximum efficiency, you need enrichment, and fuel rods, and even with multiple trips through the reactor core a significant amount of fuel isn’t burned or economically useful, and when your done you also need processes do deal with highly radioactive material + the costs of dry casks, and then transport them offsite and then down into some tunnels.

Add all that stuff up and fuel is a major expense. Granted that downtime depends on the design, and is also used to do other maintenance tasks but without refueling you’d end up with different tradeoffs.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> What nuclear waste? Where is it?

Good question! Since you asked: it is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.

> Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time.

This is not true at all, unless you consider "short amount of time" to include decades to centuries to millenia.

[janc_]

I know where the nuclear waste is stored here. Its storage is funded by the government for now (not included in electricity prices) and nobody can actually prove it will be safe for the centuries it will be dangerous.

[Retric]

Subsides, the cost to produce electricity and the cost charged for that energy end up very different.