>i.e. 0.02677/kWh. Where would this measure as too high?
Well, there are a few plants in the US (for example Kewaunee, rancho seco) that were closed for not being profitable. In one instance the owner took an over 300M usd write-off instead of continuing operations. So it measured too high there.
The explanation is likely that the 0.02677 is not the actual total costs of operations. In fact the report states it plainly on page 2: "not the full cost of owning and operating a nuclear plant."
I fully support your idea to identify ALL the costs not just for nuclear, but let's start with nuclear, since that's clearly where the largest misconception exists today.
>Proposing e-fuels is basically saying we should use a battery with higher conversion losses.
Thats dismissive, it is also a basically limitless capacity battery. We already have periods of 0 electricity costs, more electricity than we know what we can do with. This will increase, and having it generate e-fuel would be a nice option for it.
Well, there are a few plants in the US (for example Kewaunee, rancho seco) that were closed for not being profitable. In one instance the owner took an over 300M usd write-off instead of continuing operations. So it measured too high there.
The explanation is likely that the 0.02677 is not the actual total costs of operations. In fact the report states it plainly on page 2: "not the full cost of owning and operating a nuclear plant."
I fully support your idea to identify ALL the costs not just for nuclear, but let's start with nuclear, since that's clearly where the largest misconception exists today.
>Proposing e-fuels is basically saying we should use a battery with higher conversion losses.
Thats dismissive, it is also a basically limitless capacity battery. We already have periods of 0 electricity costs, more electricity than we know what we can do with. This will increase, and having it generate e-fuel would be a nice option for it.