• bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are you pretending that renewable are not subsidised? Renewable are young yet, how will the prices do in 10 years when they will start to be maintained and replaced? What about the energy you need to complement renewable? Is it considered in their price or not? Do you consider the price of renewable when they’re cheap because of overproduction?

    https://4thgeneration.energy/the-true-costs-of-nuclear-and-renewables/

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re like “did you consider factors a, b, c, d?” and then link to an article that explicitly ignores all of those factors and compares only the amortized cost of the construction of the plants, omitting all other operating costs.

      We omit the higher operational costs for the nuclear power plant as they are an economic benefit as well. These costs are recycled back into the economy through wages and taxes.

      On top of that, this argument is a classic economic fallacy. It’s a little bit like saying “breaking windows is an economic benefit because people will pay glass makers to fix them and so money flows back into the economy.” It completely ignores opportunity costs.

      I haven’t seen any levelized cost of electricity study that makes nuclear competitive with wind and solar power. Now I’m not against nuclear power in principle, and as the renewable share goes up grid operators might be willing to pay a premium to subsidize reliable nuclear base load generators.

      However the economic proposition I just cannot see. The long lifetime is actually working against nuclear plants here as potential investors assume much greater risk, combined with enormous up-front construction costs. Who wants to invest billions of dollars to bet on electricity prices 60 years into the future? Lots of things can happen in that time.