> Uranium could easily be $300/lb and nuclear will still be competitive.
$300/lb is $14/MWh which would put it precisely a dollar above the PPA price of recent indian and mexican solar projects in the current fleet, or $10/MWh which is projected 2025 prices in a high burnup reactor. Ie. Raw Uranium alone would cost more than renewables total cost whilst still only making up a quarter of the marginal costs and a tenth of the total cost.
> Yeah, "electricity" which is intermittent and currently requires Russian and Qatari natgas to load balance... or perhaps you can re-open some coal mines. Pick your poison.
Replacing 50% of electricity and 30% of primary energy without any electrical storage at all is still double what is possible with nuclear which will require that gas and coal to be running 24/7. 4 hour storage and more variable loads (like replacing fossil ammonia) can push this up to quadruple the maximum physically possible contribution from PWRs.
Also before you start gaslighting about storage you need to demonstrate that PWRs can do better than renewables with no storage if the PWR has 0 capex or build time, or that nuclear doesn't need 4 hour storage for meeting variable loads. Which you haven't.
No. From the World Nuclear Association, "doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 ¢/kWh, an increase of one-quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 ¢/kWh to 1.42 ¢/kWh (an increase of almost 10%)."
Uranium could easily be $300/lb and nuclear will still be competitive.
> Pre-paying for 75 years worth of electricity rather than 25
Yeah, "electricity" which is intermittent and currently requires Russian and Qatari natgas to load balance... or perhaps you can re-open some coal mines. Pick your poison.