Nuclear costs would be way higher if the plant operators would need to have insurance for catastrophic failures. Right now, they don't need that. The state (the population) just takes this risk.
Nuclear costs would be way higher if the plant operators would need to have insurance for catastrophic failures. Right now, they don't need that. The state (the population) just takes this risk.
Even ignoring all of that, there's "time to first watt" - essentially if you break ground now, how quickly can you start producing power? Nuclear has years scale, wind and solar has weeks, if not days.
And also when better tech comes along, you can partially transition a farm to newer panels and resell the old ones after market.
Plus you don't have to build Onkalo Repository like systems to store waste for 100,000 years after you've produced your electricity.
It's wildly more feasible.
"Years" is technically correct I guess - recent EPRs have taken 18 years from license to grid. Hinkley C 2012-2031 (projected). Flamanville 3 2006-2024. Olkiluoto 3 2005-2023. This is way too much latency. Every little bit helps of cours but it's hopeless optimism to think nuclear meaningfully helps the climate disaster for the foreseeable future.
I have this same issue with fusion. Who cares if the fuel is practically free, when building and operating the plant is extremely expensive and prone to failures due to the sheer complexity.
Of course the tech and science is cool, possibly useful in space or other niche environments, but whenever I see fusion proposed as some general energy solution, I just roll my eyes and move on.
People really love scifi on hn, and that's fine ... but the investment capital has spoken and renewables are being funded 30x nuclear. Not 30% more, 3,000% more. It's even 2x over ogc infra (oil, gas, coal)
https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id...
It's a 12-1 over OGC in what the IEA labels "advanced economies" https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2025
We'll have direct antimatter annihilation at scale before we have fusion. It's basically a physics research project, with zero potential for commercial use.
There's already a convenient fusion reactor fairly close by, and it's unlikely to stop operating any time soon.
> Even ignoring all of that, there's "time to first watt" - essentially if you break ground now, how quickly can you start producing power? Nuclear has years scale, wind and solar has weeks, if not days.
France and China have built nuclear plants in 6 years, and they provide stable power for over 40 years, unlike wind turbines and panels which last maybe 20 for panels (if you're lucky), and a few years for turbine failures, and neither provide stable power.
Renewables have their place but people really need to stop with this panacea nonsense.
Panels are warrantied for 25 or 30 years at a specific level of performance, with 30 year old installs still working today and 40 years is an expected lifetime for a modern panel before it will dip below that warranted level but still be producing energy with minimal upkeep.
Why do think the two countries you mention as being capable of quickly building nuclear are in fact much more quickly deploying renewables?
Panel damage happens from more than just the sun, eg. hail, sand/dust, wind, branches, etc. Warranty doesn't cover that.
> Why do think the two countries you mention as being capable of quickly building nuclear are in fact much more quickly deploying renewables?
Short-term political expediency is not an argument for technical superiority or fitness for purpose.
Nuclear operators do need insurance to cover incidents, so they're already paying that cost on top of the absurd regulatory burdens. Current gen nuclear designs are basically meltdown proof, so not only should insurance costs be lower, but regulatory burden should also be lower.
The liability is capped at a certain amount. In the US, that is around $450 million per reactor. They also have to buy in to a fond. In France, the cap is 700 million euro. Above that, the federal government _could_ step in. The problem is, no private insurer (or even pool of insurers) could cover the absolute worst-case GAU, and not even the government really.
In Fukushima, TEPCO was required pay $1.5 billion. But the real cost is / was around $150 billion. So, the bulk of the disaster was not covered / covered by the taxpayer. So: the public.
Right. If the only way a business is profitable is because the public has been convinced to pick up the tab, please excuse me for not being interested.
> the cap is 700 million euro
According to the French nuclear industry itself a major accident on one reactor may cost more than 430 billion euro (2013). Source (French): https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-...
Biz as usual... https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....
> Current gen nuclear designs are basically meltdown proof
Basically.