Here in the UK there's one nuclear power project on the cards - an extra reactor for the existing 'Hinkley Point' power plant.

The problem is the government has had a lot of trouble convincing anyone to build it for them. It's been so difficult, in fact, that they're promising EDF Energy more than double [1] or even triple [2] the present UK wholesale power price, increasing with inflation, guaranteed for 35 years, paid for by tax payers.

I find it difficult to tell my friends that nuclear is cost-effective when it needs such huge, super-long-term government subsidies.

[1] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Hinkley+is+the+peak+of+sub... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hinkley-poin...

In a traditional power system the price of energy is heavily based on the cost of fuel. Some fuels (like gas) may only be economical when energy prices rise to a particular level.

Nuclear power, solar, and wind are not like that. The fuel is effectively free, and the costs are fixed regardless of demand or energy price. So it makes sense to run the station as much as possible, regardless of how little money the power is sold for. That means that the price would fluctuate depending on the wider market. If the price of gas suddenly drops then nuclear makes less money.

Subsidies let you set the price up front at a level that is "fair" to pay for capital and ongoing costs. You can argue that the price is too high, but the presence of subsidies is difficult to avoid.

The crazy thing about Hinkley is that the subsidy level is actually linked to wider energy prices. The government have a weird incentive to rig the market in favour of Hinkley C. If electricity becomes cheaper then the scheme will seem like a rip off!

Take the money you need to build a nuclear reactor. If it takes 15 years to build, with the same money you could have built a solar panel factory every year, the oldest of which would have built 15 years worth of panels and by the final year you'd be making enough panels to equal the output of the nuclear power plant every year thereafter.

If you focus tightly in on the gloomy and northerly UK then you may think nuclear still has an advantage, but if you treat global warming as a global problem then driving solar down its production curve makes much more sense.

Ok, so I made my comments not about the UK in particular, but at the level of reports from IEA or EIA or Lazard's. At the napkin math level, ignoring baseload (which is nuclear) or dispatchability (which is not really nuclear), PV solar blows away nuclear. But then, so does nearly every energy source. Nobody builds a nuclear plant because its profitable or cost effective.

We need to watch for when solar and wind beat natural gas for electricity generation costs. (And then we need to start watching for power to gas costs....)

> Nobody builds a nuclear plant because its profitable or cost effective.

This just isn't true.

Solar and wind power have failed disastrously in Germany, to the extent that they have to now cut back on wind power and start building coal fired plants, because they were stupid enough to turn off their nuclear facilities.

If we're to believe https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-ag... then the Germans didn't quite "have to [...] start building coal fired plants", but they have trouble stopping people from building more coal fired plants, because that is still economically lucrative.

No. They have to have fossil plants because electricity cannot be stored effectively, except in very mountainous countries with enough hydroelectric dams, like Norway or Costa Rica. Since electricity cannot be stored, it has to be manufactured when required. People require electricity at night or on calm days when the wind is not blowing, and they often don't require as much electricity as can be produced at the right time. Since the Germans turned off their nuclear plants, to make that electricity, they had to build more fossil plants.

So sell the solar generated energy to Norway via the existing DC link and upgrade the link as necessary. Also upgrade the east-west electricity distribution system and sell the energy to neighbours who are in the dark.

And lastly, if electric cars are implemented properly they can be used for peak shedding. See, for instance, https://www.techcentral.co.za/how-electric-cars-could-change..., https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/07/bmws-plan-to-..., and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/20/electric....

> Since electricity cannot be stored,

That should be 'Since electricity cannot currently be cost effectively stored," It is a matter of economics not natural law.

> 'Since electricity cannot currently be cost effectively stored," It is a matter of economics not natural law.

What I meant should be obvious to someone who read my entire reply. Selectively quoting part of it and then making a counter-claim using the quote as a strawman argument shows that you are not a person to be taken seriously.

While I take your point on Germany, it is also true that modern construction of nuclear plants is disastrous financially.

Okay well on page 164 (https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml) MacKay writes: "If fast reactors are 60 times more efficient, the same extraction of ocean uranium could deliver 420 kWh per day per person." Granted, this depends on fast breeder reactors and ocean extraction of uranium, but those are both experimentally proven technologies.

Why wouldn't we adopt the only energy source that has been shown to scale to provide the entire world with Western levels of energy for 1,000 years?

Nuclear plants go up in decades, solar and wind generators go up in months.

Nuclear all-in costs (about 10-20 cents per kwh) are lower then most sources, and the operating costs beat everything but wind. Big problem is cost overruns.

Are there sources for this which include externalities like mining and producing the fuel?