[sehansen]

An already built nuclear plant is cheaper than building new solar and wind, which is what this article is about. It had already started operational tests at 5% capacity when it was shut down.

And nuclear power doesn't inherently emit CO2 (or equivalents), which is what is meant by zero-carbon in this context.

[ZeroGravitas]

The low end of costs for new build solar and wind in the US is nearly identical to the average running costs of fully deprecated nuclear plants in the US according to Lazard.

Solar low end $38, Wind low end $37, Nuclear running cost average $34, Nuclear new build low end $141

Normally I'd say that renewables cost is likely to continue to fall over time, but with Trump in charge and putting his thumb on the scale that future is a little cloudy. These are all long term investments and risk causes higher prices.

Either way if a nation is looking to get out of nuclear today then it's not a clear cut case to say that they'd lose money by doing so.

[sehansen]

Yeah, with how much focus there is on the capital costs of nuclear power plants it's easy to forget they also have moderate operating costs. With the developments we're seeing, you're right that the LCOE of solar and wind is or will soon be lower than the operating costs of nuclear. That leaves the only remaining upsides of nuclear being production stability and energy diversity, and grid batteries are making the first less and less important every year. Not to mention that the capacity factor will be pushed down from the demand side worsening the costs even more since not all operating costs are proportional to the amount of energy generated.

[leonidasrup]

Lazard makes recommendations for investors in different kinds of energy generation.

But the costs for electricity customers depend on the price of the whole electric mix, for US it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap natural gas, for China it's a mix of cheap renewables and cheap coal, for EU it's a mix of cheap renewables and very expensive natural gas.

I agree, in US new nuclear power build is not competitive with the combination of cheap renewables (especially cheap solar) and cheap natural gas. The Nuclear Renaissance talked in US since about about 2001, was made insignificant in US by the franking gas revolution, starting in about 2008.

"According to the Department of Energy (DOE), by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and, of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the natural gas production in the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_in_the_United_States

[mpweiher]

> according to Lazard. ... Nuclear new build low end

Here's what Lazard actually says:

“We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35)

“We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47)

“the costs of nuclear should go down “ (12:54)

“next five to 10 years the nuclear bar the one that's most likely to change the most in in terms of cost reduction” (14:06)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ

And to claim this is the "low end" is a bald-faced lie.

They used a single nuclear power plant that was the most expensive nuclear power plant ever built in the US and one of the 3 most expensive in the world, ever. Of course, they note that this is the case, and that this is unrepresentative. Alas, all the anti-nuclear activists quoting Lazard are not this honest.