Nuclear power is valuable – not expensive

Nuclear power is valuable – not expensive

One by one, he tries to explain to people why nuclear power is so expensive. Unfortunately, it is not reported that 1) Western countries do not have much experience in building with nuclear power for more than 20 years at the same time 2) the projects have undergone major organizational changes along the way. Above are 3) typical projects (EPR 1600 in Great Britain, France and Finland and AP-1000 in the USA). These factors have of course caused significant delays in these projects with the same costs. At the top, 20-30 years are assumed analysis horizon When calculating life expectancy cost average (LCOE), despite the fact that these plants have a lifespan of 60-80 years.

When judging a technology, it should be done on the basis of normal circumstances. If you do, you will get completely different answers

Jan Emblemsvage. Image: NTNU

Such a biased choice is misleading, he does not know. You can ask yourself what would the wind power industry have achieved if we were to use the first ever built wind power plant as the basis, or if we were to use the worst oil and gas project as the basis for judging the oil and gas industry? The truth is, these are known problems across all industries.

When judging a technology, it should be done on the basis of normal circumstances. If you do, you will get completely different answers. Firstly, Average construction time Globally it is 88 months since 1981. This results in lower overall project financial costs.

See also  That's why your phone didn't ring

Second, one must assume that the design has been created enough times to be able to judge its true costs and not burden it with change and prototype costs. Unfortunately, the United States and Great Britain hardly succeeded in building two identical facilities, while France often built two identical facilities. South Korea shows best practices: they build nuclear power plants like they build ships – they develop them, standardize them, and then build them again and again. In this way, they were able to build evenly between them 30 and 40 øre / kWh Depending on the discount factor and financing costs. Cost development Thus nuclear power is the result of choice, not technology.

Third, the calculation of average lifetime cost is often wrong because one either ignores reliability, availability, or maintainability, ignores the engineering conditions of the system and cuts the lifetime off at 25 years. If nuclear power is so expensive, how can the US nuclear power industry provide it about 30 øre / kWh ? Costs are of course higher in the first 25 years due to depreciation, but costs are roughly halved in the remaining 40-55 years of life so the total is low. IEA’s LCOE Calculator It shows well: Nuclear power is competitive with a 7 per cent discount – ahead of Danish wind except for budget and backup costs.

Jan Emblemsvage

Hanisi Anenih

Hanisi Anenih

"Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *