The Economics of Nuclear Energy
Why Hacker News recommends it
Recommended as a clear walkthrough of nuclear plant economics and why incentives favor other generation.
What it is
Real Engineering looks at why nuclear power plants are expensive and how their economics compare with fossil and renewable alternatives. It is based on a video from the Illinois Energy Professors.
Recommended by 2 HN commenters across 2 different months, 2020 to 2023.
What Hacker News said
Recommends xabush · 2020-10 · on “We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal”
This excellent video delves into the economics of nuclear power plants and compares them with the alternatives. [this video] Although nuclear energy is profitable of the LONG term, it is financially infeasible over the short-to-medium term.
Recommends meowkit · 2023-05 · on “When will global warming hit the landmark 1.5 ºC limit?”
this video always comes to mind. [this video] The economic incentives (in a sort of basic example) are in favor of fossil fuel plants. It takes too long for traditional nuclear plants to have a return. Energy generation is sadly more complicated than I had hoped as a laymen. The sources have to compete on variable demand basis along with amortized costs over years. Nuclear needs novel designs with better economic returns, or to be given assistance by government to be more competitive on this amortized basis.
Cites yakshaving_jgt · 2020-08 · on “Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom”
Do you have a source to support that claim? Because from what I’ve read and seen, the economics of nuclear are significantly better over a longer timespan. [this video]
Cites scrollaway · 2022-03 · on “Britain to start approval process for Rolls-Royce mini nuclear reactor”
It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time, but there is ROI, and it’s not even that far in time. It’s just that you have to spend more time in debt. [this video]
Cites the_cramer · 2023-04 · on “Shutting down nuclear power could increase air pollution: study”
From what I've seen [1] the long-term investment a nuclear reactor is massive and ROI is often measured in centuries. Also we still don't have a good solution for power spike handling with renewables + energy storage. A windless night is the scenario we're talking about here. So most of this discussion is probably addressing nuclear vs. coal / gas [1] [this video]
Cites billytetrud · 2023-12 · on “First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation”
I'm not sure why you think that Exelon didn't consider regulatory risk as one of the things that made it not make sense for them. It was certainly a large factor. The idea that existing nuclear power plants are losing money because they aren't operationally competitive with oil and gas does not square with the facts. The total cost of running a nuclear plant is 30% less than oil and gas per kilowatt-hour. And if all our nuclear plants weren't 50 years old and saddled with massive overregulation, the operation and maintenance of a nuclear plant would probably be equivalent to running a fossil fueled power plant, which would cut ANOTHER 30% off the cost of nuclear because fuel costs of fossil