U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned

Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned by dflock on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @01:02PM (#14902868)

Right, but onshore wind is massively cheaper.

Also, renewables can be built out incrementally and start generating very quickly, so your ROI starts almost immediately.

With nuclear you're looking at a ~10 billion upfront investment, that doesn't start generating for at least a decade.

In addition to this, costs for renewables are falling, while costs for nuclear are not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned by ageofwant on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @01:13PM (#14902986)

95% of that cost is due to compliance requirements. 98% of those compliance requirements are 100% bs. If the same requirements were asked of new coal or gas built it would exceed that of a nuclear plant. The average coal plant emits more radiation in a month than the average nuclear plant during its entire operational lifespan. And billions of tons of CO2 for extra planet-killing power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned by dflock on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:42PM (#14907216)

a) I'm pretty sure you just made those numbers up

b) Yes, Nuclear power is heavily regulated and this affects the cost. But that is the world we live in - and the world we build generating capacity in, so deal with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned by bjourne on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @05:56PM (#14905762)

Where have you got those numbers from?

[ Parent | on HN ]