Comment

Comment by apatheticonion

Doing back of napkin math (using the numbers I can find) it doesn't seem like nuclear power is expensive to construct - at least compared to solar and wind. Nothing is cost competitive with natural gas and coal - but that's the problem we are trying to solve.

Solar:

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

The Topaz Solar Farm in the US has a capacity of 550MW and a construction cost of $2.5b US billion.

That puts it at a cost of $4.5 million per MW capacity (550MW / 2.5b) (adjusted for inflation that's $3.2b USD or $5.8m per MW). It is used at 26% of its capacity which I assume is due to the non dispatchable nature of solar (would likely change if batteries were added - increasing cost).

Assuming a 10 year loan at 3% adds $500m bringing it to $6.7m per MW capacity

Nuclear:

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

The Palo Verde nuclear plant has a capacity of 3937MW and a construction cost of $12.6b USD adjusted for inflation. That puts it at a cost of $3.2m per MW capacity and it was used at 82% of its capacity over its lifetime.

Interest at 3% over 10 years adds 2b to the figure making it $3.7m per MW capacity

Limitations:

This doesn't consider running costs, maintenance or factor how usage capacity affects cost.

Maybe I am missing something, perhaps the running costs of nuclear eclipse the total cost of solar + batteries over 50 years? Maybe the loans granted for nuclear are at a much higher interest rate than those granted for other power projects? Is insurance a factor?

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton