Great piece! I've often had a hard time wrapping my head around some of the factors that mislead people in saying that "nuclear is too expensive" and this does a great job of looking at it holistically! Great one
Great article. Many thanks. LCOE has been a deliberate means whereby the fiction of solar and wind being cheaper than nuclear, has been pushed to gullible (or conniving!) media and politicians and NGOs, by vested interested parties.
The vast majority of people look towards their favourers media, political or NGOs for the truth, but are unwilling, unable or just too lazy to follow through the background details, to find the actual truth behind the misuse of LCOE.
Also, when people shout that nuclear is too expensive. Well, one reason why is that there isn't an universal design, all reactors are custom-built to specifications, so customization obviously takes extra money, equipment is custom engineered and manufactured for each plant.
Also, transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear saves one cost. Since both fossil fuel and nuclear plants require cooling towers, the fossil fuel plant towers can be retrofitted to work with nuclear, and no need to build new ones. It will also save not just money, but significant emissions, considering the sheer amount of concrete and steel that goes into them.
And from an economic standpoint, also wind and solar score bad. All this talk about how the renewables are good opportunity to create more jobs, nope. Currently in the US, fossil fuel plants require hundreds of electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights and boilermakers, who can make up to $100,000/year in wages and benefits (if unionized). On the other hand, solar farm workers are mainly nonunion construction laborers making $20/hour at best with modest benefits (so about $41,600/year). So the transition to wind and solar would rather reinforce economic inequality than alleviate it. Plus, once it's built, then what? Many solar farms often make do without a single worker on site.
I have tried explaining this to others before but I was never able to put it all down this eloquently. I will cite this in the future when discussing these issues with people. Climate justice requires nuclear.
There is one problem with the graphic comparing 1000 MW of nuclear with 1000 MW of solar or wind, namely that while one single power plant can give in average 1000 MW (the 1600 MWe EPR even more than that), a 1000 MW installed solar capacity will give in average 200 MW at the most, so you would need many more solar panels or wind turbines to produce the same power of a nuclear plant, in average over the year.
A small modular reactor (SMR) powered world supplying low-carbon, pollution-free electricity for all diurnal and seasonal load-followed grid needs. Plus dedicated SMRs for greenH2 manufacture to decarbonise all other sectors of energy use to the maximum.
And the only other ingredient needed - carbon capture for immediate use to manufacture all the hydrocarbon based products on which our lifestyles depend. Of course - low hanging fruit first - a multitude of industrial/energy sources: cement manufacture; waste burning; [environmentally justifiable] biomass burning; etc., before DAC and such is considered.
The brilliant part is that it's over 10X better than a zero-sum-game:
Get onto it Zion and do your inimitable stuff throughout social media and other platforms:
I have previously tried to estimate the uncounted value of nuclear past the 40 years of its rated LCOE. If the running cost of 3 cents/kwh displaces an alternative source such as wind and solar plus storage at 8 cents/kWh the total value over an additional 35 years is $14 billion per GW of nuclear
Since it's 'free money' I figure a 2% discount rate makes sense and accounting for extension costs the 'present value' (in the future) of the plant is $10 billion at the time of extension
The amount of money you would need to invest at 5% at the time of the plant's initial completion would be $1.3 billion dollars to equal this number. This is a remarkable potential value compared to the cost of the cheapest nuclear plants at $3 billion per GW, and still striking compared to a relatively expensive but well enough executed project like Hinkley C at $7 billion per GW. That's about 15% of the cost in uncounted value
It is possible that technological developments will make 3 cents/kWh unattractive 40 years from now although that hasn't been the experience compared to 40 years before now. As well while an idealized economic model might value the $1 billion at 5% the same as any other investment at 5% it strikes me that a future option for low cost zero carbon energy must be much more valuable than if it were invested in consumer products like making cooler board games and kid's toys. There are distinctions made by economists in favour of taxes on consumption over those on wages and capital investment
It's certainly very interesting to think of a GW nuclear plant as being worth $10 billion to future generations unless they have even better options
Another great article, informative, myth busting and thought provoking.
Great piece! I've often had a hard time wrapping my head around some of the factors that mislead people in saying that "nuclear is too expensive" and this does a great job of looking at it holistically! Great one
Excellent review
I have been looking for something like this for years.
Great article. Many thanks. LCOE has been a deliberate means whereby the fiction of solar and wind being cheaper than nuclear, has been pushed to gullible (or conniving!) media and politicians and NGOs, by vested interested parties.
The vast majority of people look towards their favourers media, political or NGOs for the truth, but are unwilling, unable or just too lazy to follow through the background details, to find the actual truth behind the misuse of LCOE.
Ding ding ding ding ding! You nailed it.
Also, when people shout that nuclear is too expensive. Well, one reason why is that there isn't an universal design, all reactors are custom-built to specifications, so customization obviously takes extra money, equipment is custom engineered and manufactured for each plant.
Also, transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear saves one cost. Since both fossil fuel and nuclear plants require cooling towers, the fossil fuel plant towers can be retrofitted to work with nuclear, and no need to build new ones. It will also save not just money, but significant emissions, considering the sheer amount of concrete and steel that goes into them.
And from an economic standpoint, also wind and solar score bad. All this talk about how the renewables are good opportunity to create more jobs, nope. Currently in the US, fossil fuel plants require hundreds of electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights and boilermakers, who can make up to $100,000/year in wages and benefits (if unionized). On the other hand, solar farm workers are mainly nonunion construction laborers making $20/hour at best with modest benefits (so about $41,600/year). So the transition to wind and solar would rather reinforce economic inequality than alleviate it. Plus, once it's built, then what? Many solar farms often make do without a single worker on site.
Source on the last paragraph: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/business/economy/green-energy-jobs-economy.html
I have tried explaining this to others before but I was never able to put it all down this eloquently. I will cite this in the future when discussing these issues with people. Climate justice requires nuclear.
There is one problem with the graphic comparing 1000 MW of nuclear with 1000 MW of solar or wind, namely that while one single power plant can give in average 1000 MW (the 1600 MWe EPR even more than that), a 1000 MW installed solar capacity will give in average 200 MW at the most, so you would need many more solar panels or wind turbines to produce the same power of a nuclear plant, in average over the year.
This is the way the world must go.
You heard it here first.
A small modular reactor (SMR) powered world supplying low-carbon, pollution-free electricity for all diurnal and seasonal load-followed grid needs. Plus dedicated SMRs for greenH2 manufacture to decarbonise all other sectors of energy use to the maximum.
And the only other ingredient needed - carbon capture for immediate use to manufacture all the hydrocarbon based products on which our lifestyles depend. Of course - low hanging fruit first - a multitude of industrial/energy sources: cement manufacture; waste burning; [environmentally justifiable] biomass burning; etc., before DAC and such is considered.
The brilliant part is that it's over 10X better than a zero-sum-game:
Get onto it Zion and do your inimitable stuff throughout social media and other platforms:
https://colinmegson.substack.com/p/how-to-cease-burning-fossil-fuels
Bengt Olsson has done interesting simulations, on power and costs https://adelsfors.se/author/beos/
I have previously tried to estimate the uncounted value of nuclear past the 40 years of its rated LCOE. If the running cost of 3 cents/kwh displaces an alternative source such as wind and solar plus storage at 8 cents/kWh the total value over an additional 35 years is $14 billion per GW of nuclear
Since it's 'free money' I figure a 2% discount rate makes sense and accounting for extension costs the 'present value' (in the future) of the plant is $10 billion at the time of extension
The amount of money you would need to invest at 5% at the time of the plant's initial completion would be $1.3 billion dollars to equal this number. This is a remarkable potential value compared to the cost of the cheapest nuclear plants at $3 billion per GW, and still striking compared to a relatively expensive but well enough executed project like Hinkley C at $7 billion per GW. That's about 15% of the cost in uncounted value
It is possible that technological developments will make 3 cents/kWh unattractive 40 years from now although that hasn't been the experience compared to 40 years before now. As well while an idealized economic model might value the $1 billion at 5% the same as any other investment at 5% it strikes me that a future option for low cost zero carbon energy must be much more valuable than if it were invested in consumer products like making cooler board games and kid's toys. There are distinctions made by economists in favour of taxes on consumption over those on wages and capital investment
It's certainly very interesting to think of a GW nuclear plant as being worth $10 billion to future generations unless they have even better options