← Back to context

Comment by ViewTrick1002

1 day ago

Again you are wrong. Why do you make stuff up when you are in over your head?

The $190/MWh figure for Vogtle does not include decommissioning, waste disposal or the 99% subsidized accident insurance.

I love how you call it "chickening out" when what happened was that despite the absolutely massive handouts they couldn't work out a business case. But just keep throwing trillions at an industry experiencing negative learning by doing and hope for another outcome.

I love how you resorted to inventing new costs for storage when even you realized you couldn't dodge reality anymore.

Thank you for confirming that storage is undeniable here and that new built nuclear power is a completely unreasonable proposition in 2025.

> Again you are wrong. Why do you make stuff up when you are in over your head?

If your next comment includes something like this again, I will not respond. You can "win" the last word by including insulting language like this.

https://www.lazard.com/media/uounhon4/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

"Reflects the average of the high and low LCOE marginal cost of operating fully depreciated gas peaking, gas combined cycle, coal and nuclear facilities, inclusive of decommissioning costs for nuclear facilities. Analysis assumes that the salvage value for a decommissioned gas or coal asset is equivalent to its decommissioning and site restoration costs. Inputs are derived from a benchmark of operating gas, coal and nuclear assets across the U.S. Capacity factors, fuel, variable and fixed operating expenses are based on upper- and lower-quartile estimates derived from Lazard’s research"

Reactors in the US are required to prefund decommissioning and to pay into a government-run waste disposal program. They also pay for the first $450M of accident insurance and pay into a secondary $12B liability pool.

No US accident has ever tapped the secondary liability pool.

These are all ordinary operating costs.

> I love how you resorted to inventing new costs for storage when even you realized you couldn't dodge reality anymore.

Again loaded language. No, I'm saying using the amortized as-built capital costs-- like Lazard does-- to figure LCOE is reasonable. There's reasons it's pessimistic (we may have some useful life left in batteries; we may be able to keep using components and infrastructure even if we replace batteries). There's reasons it's optimistic (e.g. battery recycling and disposal costs; possible obsolescence or changes in patterns of need; etc). In the end, until we have experience we have to use something in the ballpark, and as-built costs amortized over design life is reasonable.

  • Ah sorry. The previous versions of Lazard didn't include that. Final waste storage nor accident insurance are included though.

    > (4) Unless otherwise indicated, the analysis herein does not reflect decommissioning costs, ongoing maintenance-related capital expenditures or the potential economic impacts of federal loan guarantees or other subsidies.

    Even when including the entire fleet the pool is nothing compared to the $200B cleanup bill for Fukushima, last updated in 2016, with recent estimates going up to trillions.

    Lets just phase out the Price-Anderson act and force the nuclear companies to buy insurance for a Fukushima scale accident from commercial insurers?

    But the nuclear industry is just handout after handout and it still costs a horrifying $190/MWh to build and doesn't deliver until the mid 2040s.

    > No US accident has ever tapped the secondary liability pool.

    No Japanese accident ever tapped the "secondary liability pool" until Fukushima. No Soviet accident ever tapped the "secondary liability pool" until Chernobyl.

    Sounds like you just want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that nuclear accidents can't happen.

    Just slice every industry into a tiny enough sliver and pretend it is not affected. Just like people complaining that we can't do anything about our emissions "because China".