• jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not anti-nuclear, but from my understanding it’s not necessarily cost or resource-effective to build new plants, since other renewables have advanced so rapidly

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      It probably isn’t right now because interest rates are high.

      NuScale’s project a bit back got cancelled after they skyrocketed.

      Nuclear power plants have a big up-front cost and then provide a return over a long period of time. So how much it costs to get that capital is really important.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Nuclear power plants have a big up-front cost and then provide a return over a long period of time

        It appears the problem is a bit worse than that. Its a big up-front cost, then expensive operation, which means high prices to consumers for electricity generated by nuclear power compared to other power generation methods. Its the reason the plant was shut down in 2022.

        “Entergy explained, “market conditions have changed substantially, and more economic alternatives are now available to provide reliable power to the region.”” source

        So how eager are consumers to having their electricity bills go up to support nuclear power? Those in Georgia are feeling this on their electric bills with their additional reactors finally online:

        “Bills went up $5 this month after Unit 3 entered commercial operation. That’s atop a $16-a-month increase to pay for higher fuel costs two months ago. There was also an increase in base rates early this year, with another scheduled next year.” source

        So contrasting the Michigan plant, which is being restarted from cold, the Georgia plant which represents some new construction of reactors, Ohio electricity bills went up with a surcharge to subsidize two unprofitable nuclear plants.

        “Bail out two nuclear plants: From 2021 until 2027, Ohio ratepayers will pay a new monthly surcharge on their electricity bills, from 85 cents for residential customers up to $2,400 for big industrial customers. The surcharge will produce about $170 million a year; $150 million of that will be used by the utility FirstEnergy Solutions to subsidize its two big nuclear power plants — Davis-Besse, outside of Toledo, and Perry, northeast of Cleveland — which it claims are losing money and will be closed in the next couple of years without bailouts” source

        …Except Ohio is even worse than you think. The power company bribed the Republican Speaker of the House to get this legislation passed. After it was found out he’s now in prison for 20 years. source

        …However, the corrupt legislation his bribery got signed into law still stand on the books today and Ohioans continue to literally pay for this corrupt action to subsidize these unprofitable nuclear plants.

        As much as I like the zero-carbon electricity, nuclear is pretty darn expensive for what you get. You’ll open your wallet to pay for it, whether you want to or not.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If you just want the cheapest grid possible (regardless of emissions), renewables paired with gas is the cheapest. There are some exceptions to this, places like cloudy Seattle don’t make for good solar farms, which drives up the effective cost of solar significantly.

      If you are shooting for a carbon-free grid, nuclear is notably cheaper than renewables paired with grid-scale storage. Notably, much of the nuclear cost is bureaucracy that keeps the plants in limbo for decades and are quite good at making this carbon-free power source unnaturally expensive. This bureaucracy can be brought to a reasonable level if there is political will.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          They do and they don’t. They don’t because they’re machines the size of buildings, but they do because most of their construction is just standard plumbing. Except the reactor itself, of course.

          It’s pretty similar to shipbuilding. You can have a bunch of mass-produced components, even enormous components like shipping container engines, but the hull and superstructure still get made from scratch each time. And not just because of their size, but because each ship is going to be slightly custom, because it needs to fit a certain size envelope, or needs to deal with certain cargos or environmental conditions.

          Similarly, a reactor needs to be built to fit the site, in terms of plain old footprint, but also for geology, water access (if using a river for cooling), and to be protected from storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other local disasters.