Comment by bigmadshoe
12 hours ago
> Now, why did you just throw that out there without checking? Are you not interested in knowing the truth, you just want to argue for nuclear no matter what the facts say?
I'm genuinely interested, can you share the numbers you're referencing? It's surprising to me that a massive project like a nuclear reactor costs 1/3 of the inflation-adjusted total construction cost per year in upkeep. I'm not saying you're wrong, just the easy way to prove your point would be to provide some numbers.
Not OP but Lazard has published the marginal cost of existing, paid off nuclear at 29 per MWh. Someone in this discussion who sounds pro-nuclear shared almost the exact same number.
Lazard suggests the low end for new nuclear in the US is 131 per MWH (over a 60-80 year life at 97% capacity factor).
So, assuming that old nuclear cost the same amount as new nuclear that's about 23%. If you assume nuclear is more expensive today, which everyone appears to agree on, then you easily get to 1/3rd of the cost being the marginal cost of running nuclear when the original build is paid off (more if a substantial refit is needed, see France).