Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera...
by billytetrud on Saturday December 30, 2023 @07:05PM
(#38820520)
Sounds like you're ignoring my whole post. I guess this conversation is over then.
Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera...
by pfdietz on Saturday December 30, 2023 @08:08PM
(#38820890)
I'm ignoring your fantasizing, your wishful woulda-coulda-shoulda, and instead paying attention to what things actually cost. So, yes, the conversation is over.
Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera...
by PickledJesus on Sunday December 31, 2023 @05:15PM
(#38828001)
Because the regulatory environment is different in different countries, and can be changed with political will?
The US is particularly expensive: https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/infrastructure-costs-nuclear-e... but it doesn't have to remain that way.
Who cares? That putative issue would be beating a dead horse. If it didn't make sense economically anyway, why worry about that?
> The idea that existing nuclear power plants are losing money because they aren't operationally competitive with oil and gas does not square with the facts.
Oil isn't in the picture (it's not used for any baseload power generation in the US, and precious little peaking). But gas is certainly an issue. There have been existing plants (not all of them, of course) that shut down because they could not make even an operating profit. TMI's other reactor was cash flow negative for six years before it was shut down, for example.
In any environment where existing plants are troubled, building new NPPs is obviously completely off the table economically. V. C. Summer was so out of the running it was better to write off the $9B spent so far on it than to complete it.