/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12424603
because it still cheap as hell

>>12298906
Or we could just build them ourselves, it's not exactly rocket surgery. Sure makes more economic sense than the idiocy which is nuclear especially after the economic disaster of Vogtle, and recent French plants. Even China and india are dumpstering nuclear plans because it's basically lighting money on fire.

>>12203108
https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

page 8

>>12113348
https://www.lazard.com/media/451086/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-130-vf.pdf

page 8

>>11585161
So you're saying it's LCOE that matters and not efficiency? Whoa... what if....

>>11325113
>is becoming the cheapest
already is

>>11293471
Unlike nearly all other technologies, the cost of nuclear power has risen over time.

>>11281723
they're expensive as fuck

>>11232387
nope, it's a dinosaur sucking on the government's tit

>>11152985
$151/MWh

>>11143517
>Make more resilient plants?
This means more safety equipment and more concrete for protection and makes these plants even more expensive and less competitive.

>>11132691

>>11050443
this, it's actually the present

>>11036865
>Just spend nine times as much for your energy, bro
>What's the problem?

>>10998471
That's a popular talking point among you morons right now. It must be circulating Facebook or something.

The facts are that Germany is one of the worst places for solar and nearly everywhere else nuclear energy is much more expensive than any renewable energy source. Germany's bad planning doesn't make nuclear any cheaper. Bring down the cost or aquire subsidies and reactors will be built, otherwise fuck off and quit your bitching.

>>10983229
No, it's about laws and profitability. Get outta here Cletus, this is a science board.

>>10978029
So much this.

I'll humor you anyways.

>>10969317
cope

>>10567542
>Nuclear plants lasts for centuries.
In the real world the average age of a decommissioned plant is 25 years.
>Costs obscure this by making the small initial investment seem as though the life time makes sense. The costs also ignore intermittency in payback calculations.
Prove it, all recent studies show nuclear as more expensive per KW/H than solar, and yes intermittency is included in these calculations. They don't magically shut down the meter when it's cloudy.
>They need to be built relatively close proximity to urban centers where losing millions of acres of land is a real concern.
If by relatively close you mean within 500 miles sure. Losses average about .8% per 100Mi
>It isn't cheaper to maintain which is why solar is the most expensive power source per KwH.
In 2002 maybe.
>Causes much more damage to the actual enviroment.
Wrong again, disposal of solar panels is regulated, thanks to this environmental impact is virtually non existent recycling is starting to become cost effective further improving this.
>Nuclear waste is carefully disposed of, at secure facilities in the middle of nowhere.
We haven't even agreed on a single long term storage facility, and you want to increase our waste output by 10x?
>Uranium mines are dense and in the middle of nowhere generally.
do some research idiot.

>>10522972
actually the 2017 version