Why Nuclear Power, Not Renewables, Is the Path to Low-Carbon Energy (2020)

Re:Why Nuclear Power, Not Renewables, Is the Path to Low-Car... by PaulHoule on Monday June 14, 2021 @02:31PM (#27506341)

None of the cost estimates on this subject really make sense because of the period of time involved.

For instance "no nukes" think it is a scandal that we could spend $100 billion on Yucca mountain, but the average nuclear plant makes about $500 million per year in electricity so that is about 2 years of energy production. It's significant, but it's not crazy.

A reprocessing cycle could easily take a century to fully burn U238 so "what it costs" is influenced by what you think interest rates will be (or should) be for next 100 years.

Fuel cycle costs are nearly zero compared to the cost of the steam turbine at an LWR. If the price of uranium tripled, it would make little different in the basebar price of electricity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Nuclear Power, Not Renewables, Is the Path to Low-Car... by jabl on Monday June 14, 2021 @03:05PM (#27506796)

Advanced fuel cycles, today, are mostly long-term insurance against Uranium prices rising significantly.

And nope, given reprocessing, breeding, Thorium, and Uranium extraction from seawater, we're not going to run out of nuclear fuel for tens of thousands of years, if ever.

[ Parent | on HN ]