Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think would be the cost of depending on Russia for energy?
Yup. Energy independence is a cost that’s not factored in. (Then again, solar/wind could serve both factors well)
Where are the uranium mines?
Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
51–60 of 632 posts
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#52Comming from a country where nucler power is nowhere near the radar, what is the case against nuclear power? it seems such a nobrainer for me to use
It usually goes like this:
Chernobyl! Fukushima! Radiation! Waste! Death! Death!! DEATH TO ALL HUMANITY!!!
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#53What I find shockingly absent in this article is any commentary on budget and cost overruns. I'm definitely not anti-nuclear but it stands to reason that a comparison vs other forms of energy would've been wise to consider.
It was shipped with 12 years delay, and has caused billion in loss to the builder Areva/Orano. They are building a similar one in France which will have at least 11 years delay, and also billions of costs overrun.
Areva/Orano being a french state owned (mostly) company, this is probably largely paid for by the French tax payer.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like this. The project started in 2000, construction began in 2005 and should have been completed in 2010. Original cost was 3 billion euro but landed on over 10 billion euro. It is the first nuclear reactor in Europe for 15 years so not much working experience or available sub contractors. Apparently, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia can build at a third of the cost and time of that. If nuclear energy…
> Apparently, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia can build at a third of the cost and time of that. Any insight into the why?
Probably large fixed costs (engineers, builders learning how to do the thing) amortized over building a large number of plants.
China has been constructing a lot of new nuclear power plants over the last 15 years -- estimated at ~12 GW in 2013, but now closer to 50 GW as of 2021. Wikipedia says 50 plants as of 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China.
Anecdotally I've heard that temporary pollution control measures during the 2008 olympics gave the populace and decision makers a taste of reduced air pollution, and gave increased political willpower to invest in solar, wind, and nuclear power generation.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#55What I find incredible is: Once this fully ramps up, this one power plant is expected to satisfy 14% of the entire country's electricity needs. 7 of these could power an entire country, 24/7.
By population that's one reactor of this scale per million people. To replace all other sources of electricity, 8 thousand such reactors would feed the current world's population. We'd need just shy of 500 more to keep up with population growth by 2030 - or at least 500 new reactors globally per decade.
(edit - assuming everyone uses the same amount of power globally as the average person in Finland which - why shouldn't they be able to - and - obviously they don't)
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#56Comming from a country where nucler power is nowhere near the radar, what is the case against nuclear power? it seems such a nobrainer for me to use
Fear based on feeling, not on facts. That's it.
By any objective metric, nuclear is by far the best choice for stable base power generation.
"But what if it explodes" - and there goes all rationality.
Humans will take constant death from coal power plants rather than a minuscule chance of a larger catastrophe in a nuclear plant.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#57What I find shockingly absent in this article is any commentary on budget and cost overruns. I'm definitely not anti-nuclear but it stands to reason that a comparison vs other forms of energy would've been wise to consider.
We have completely screwed up market price discovery for energy with big govt involvement and subsidies. The numbers I see everywhere are cherry picked to present a winner and loser. e.g. Depending on whose point of view you read, solar/wind prices either includes or not: subsidies, storage, land, weather, green label costs passed on to customers, interest rates, etc. Coal prices either includes or not: labor, import…
If we leave energy decisions to an under-regulated "free market", we guarantee that market forces will select for the most short-termist, externality-spewing choices possible.
What do power execs care if they leave behind ruins decades down the road? They will have already made their money and enjoyed it.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#58Comming from a country where nucler power is nowhere near the radar, what is the case against nuclear power? it seems such a nobrainer for me to use
* Plants are very expensive to build. Due to massive upfront costs, it cannot beat wind/solar today unless you use very unusual financial models. (ie. assume interest rates are zero for 50 years). If nuclear plants were built more frequently, cost would come down a lot - it turns out making everything bespoke is hugely expensive.
* Lots of public opposition due to the public being scared of nuclear waste, nuclear accidents, etc. The public far prefers taking on invisible risk (like the lung cancer risk from coal/oil/gas emissions) than the huge event risk of a nuclear meltdown, even if the overall harm to human lives is higher.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#59It is only producing 100 MW of 1600 MW which they should achieve by July. Congratulations to all of the engineers there!
It’s actually been built by SIEMENS/Areva which is ironic because Germany is on the brink on shutting down all of its nuclear power plants.
Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like this. The project started in 2000, construction began in 2005 and should have been completed in 2010. Original cost was 3 billion euro but landed on over 10 billion euro. It is the first nuclear reactor in Europe for 15 years so not much working experience or available sub contractors. Apparently, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia can build at a third of the cost and time of that. If nuclear energy…
I think this is vastly misunderstood in the (artificial) renewables vs nuclear conversation. We keep building effectively one-off complex machines, and then flushing all that knowledge down the drain by saying it cost too much and took too long. Like yes, the first one always takes longer and costs more...
The difference is that nuclear is the only one where the first one’s cost is measured in the the tens of billions.
Nuclear is just too big for a privatized energy market’s participants.