• Davidchan@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    IEA refutes the LCOE figures and gives significantly lower values. And many other experts in the field criticize LCOE as being overly simplistic in ignoring several factors, such as disregarding inflation entirely (over 80% of a NPP’s LCOE), giving hilariously optimistic lifespans for renewables (30+ year turbines and solar, most are lucky to still produce power after 20 without serious upkeep) and assuming 100% load conditions throughout the year, something only Nuclear and potentially hydro can hope to achieve, every other form of energy generation having significantly less and more variable output. When you actually account for these factors, lifetime nuclear cost is not 3-4 times greater, especially when you factor in construction and decomission and disposal pricing that always gets packed in with nuclear but somehow never even considered for other types.

    As for 30 year construction time? Cite your source, because the global median is 7.5 years. 5.5 years if you remove outliers such Watts Bar which was literally halted for almost a decade due to other difficulties. Most reactors are finished quicker than this. Japan meanwhile is going from breaking ground to connecting to the grid in just about 4 years. It takes a couples months to put up a turbine, but how long do you think it takes to put up 300 turbines? I live in area surrounded by wind turbines, and I’ll tell you they aren’t putting up 300 in under a year. The park I leave near has slightly over 200 and that took over 10 years to complete despite constant construction crews working to erect them.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/

    https://radiyozh.substack.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-c2a0c6b29116

    https://i.imgur.com/KvnkXe6.jpeg

    The propaganda of the nuclear industry is truly incredible.

    It’s the anti nuclear thats astounding, the figures you’re presenting are a best misleading when sourced to outright fabrications and lies.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Why don’t you share your sources for 10-20% increased costs then? Let me see what you’re working with.

      I didn’t claim 30 years of construction time, what are you talking about? You’ll also surely know that you can’t just randomly start building a nuclear reactor anywhere - there’s a lot of steps beforehand you have to take care of (if you don’t want to damage the local ecosystem). These steps take way longer for nuclear than for renewables, pushing your 7.5 years to double or even more. This, in combination with the increased cost as well as the long time until power production starts, makes it a non-starter to solve the climate crisis.

      It’s the anti nuclear thats astounding, the figures you’re presenting are a best misleading when sourced to outright fabrications and lies.

      I can see how you might think that when you’re inventing things I’ve said.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Can you… can you literally not read? That comment doesn’t say anything about nuclear reactors taking 30 years to build. Or do you think a single nuclear reactor is enough to replace all fossil fuels? I wasn’t talking about a single nuclear reactor in that comment.

          I don’t know how to better explain it to you. Re-read the comment a couple of times, maybe you’ll notice?