• Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You’re deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So after 10-20 years of construction and cost overruns and 10-20 years of operating at a loss you start making money.

      And that’s assuming electricity rates don’t drop in that time. Which they are as renewables get deployed more and more because they don’t go 100% over budget in time and money.

      If we get started building nuclear power plants now, how much will storage and transmission tech improve before they’re even completed, let alone profitable?

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it’s 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it’s a misrepresentation.

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How long do you think it will take for a nuclear power plant to earn back the $34 billion it takes to build one? They’re definitely not making that much money the first year the plant is online.