First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by adrianN on Thursday December 28, 2023 @01:25PM (#38796665)

Even going by that ridiculously oversimplified calculation, and taking best-case numbers 0.75*$141 (10 years from first concrete poured to grid connection vs your 7.5 years average) is still barely competitive with worst-case Wind+Storage and more expensive than solar as Lazard estimates. And those are proven numbers from real projects not some pie in the sky guesstimates.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by mpweiher on Thursday December 28, 2023 @02:20PM (#38797373)

Your numbers don't add up.

Vogtle was only delayed by 25%, 2.5 years? I thought it was such a disaster and this proved nuclear doesn't work?

Now it's all good?

This says the delay was 7 years:

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl...

Oh, and the plant will still be cost effective, apparently, even with those delays.

Oh, and the solar numbers include sufficient batter storage? I saw something about 4h for half the capacity on some of the graphs. Most didn't explain at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by adrianN on Thursday December 28, 2023 @11:17PM (#38801709)

As I said above, where you didn't believe me, construction times are misleading. First concrete poured was 2013. If you don't like the numbers, please suggest a better cost estimate. As it is, nuclear seems to be expensive.

[ Parent | on HN ]