> So just how many reactors will $80 billion buy? Assuming an average of $16 billion per AP1000—slightly less than for Vogtle, and allowing for cost reductions from economies of scale and learning-by-doing—the plan would mean five new reactors. That would represent an increase of about 5.7 percent in total U.S. nuclear energy generation capacity, if all the reactors currently in service remain online.

▲

allears 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

And those are all optimistic assumptions, and allow no margin for delays and cost overruns.

▲

toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people making these decisions will be long dead by the time these costs catch up to us, just like Brexit. Most unfortunate if you have US federal tax liability and can’t avoid paying towards the fiat furnace.

▲

estearum 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn’t that Vogtle benchmark including significant cost overruns, delays, etc?

	▲	mindslight 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but presumably there has been some innovation for new types of cost overruns and delays.

▲

Analemma_ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Based on recent prices for utility-scale solar, I think $80 billion would buy you about 65 GW of solar nameplate capacity, versus 5 GW for 5 AP1000s. Even after accounting for battery capacity and duty cycle and whatnot, this a terrible bargain.

▲

mindslight a day ago | parent [-]

Isn't the nameplate capacity of solar the peak production when the sun is right overhead and the panels are new? Or is it spec'd differently at utility scale?

Say 20% around-the-clock production versus the nameplate capacity, cell degradation, and battery storage doubling the cost, and those costs are starting to look in the same ballpark. Plus having some diversity of sources isn't bad.

▲

toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-]

Battery backed solar is cheaper than nuclear today, and any nuclear generator will take at least ten years to build, shovel in ground to first kWh to the grid.

▲

mindslight a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, I don't disagree with that argument, and think the destructionists ending the solar subsidies is a treacherous "mistake". But I'd also say that some diversity is worth it in and of itself, rather than relying on one single thing to solve it all, as technologists tend to want to do.

▲

toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-]

This argument is easy to make when it’s other people’s tax dollars or capital. I don’t mind this position, as long as it isn’t my capital or tax dollars being incinerated on high risk suboptimal energy system investment, based on the evidence and known trajectories. For those who believe it’s worth it, I fully support them contributing their capital or tax dollars to their belief system.

	▲	mindslight a day ago \| parent [-]
		Given how this regime has squandered money and ballooned the debt for things that are outright harmful to our country, I'd say as long as the reactors don't melt down (whether through sheer incompetence or as part of a deliberate plan) we're coming out ahead. I certainly wish we were at a place where fiscal responsibility arguments had relevance, but we just aren't.