Originally posted by twhitehead
You obviously don't know what my argument is. I have never claimed it is not competitive by those calculations.
[b]In the UK the numbers listed for new nuclear are directly comparable with wind power,
and way better than solar. And for France the only listed power that was cheaper was hydro.
Which comes with it's own downsides of flooding huge areas ...[text shortened]... en't here when your post is addressed to me. Deal with things I say, not things you wish I said.
Yes, but surely the downsides are part of the calculation? Maybe not. Maybe
nuclear's downsides aren't either. I did say there were caveats.
No, the calculation is looking at the financial cost. It doesn't factor in other costs like
"a view ruined by thousands of wind turbines" or "the town I grew up in is now flooded and
under a reservoir" etc etc.
Which would benefit renewables far more than nuclear.
Again no. Mass production saves money because the design and development costs and
the costs associated with making moulds and production lines is spread over many more units.
However as you increase the number of units you are making the saving per product reduces
and the fixed per item costs come to dominate.
If you are dealing with a small number of units then 'small' changes to the number of units will
have a big effect. If you make a £100 million mould, and make 1 unit then that unit must bear the
full £100 million cost. If you make 2, then each only needs to bear £50 million. If you make
10, £10 million... ect. However if you were making 10,000 and you up that to 100,000 then
the cost savings are much smaller. [you might get bulk deals on materials, be able to have a smaller
profit margin per unit ect, but the big savings have already happened because you were already manufacturing
in bulk.
Wind, solar, these are already largely based on mass produced items. we build tens of thousands of wind
turbines and tens of thousands of solar panels. Making them even more mass produced is going to net
only small cost savings per unit.
However nuclear reactors are currently build as single stand alone units. They are not mass produced at all.
Consequently, if you were to instead of ordering 1~2 reactors, order ~60 reactors, there would be [and were for
the French who actually did this] massive per unit savings that dramatically reduce the costs.
There is a reason that Frances nuclear cost is ~half that of the UK's per GW/hr.
The do say 'advanced nuclear'. How do you know those numbers do not include all the things you say they do not include?
Because I read the page and supporting documents [not this time but last time].
And because almost nobody is currently actually planning to do this, because politics.
Please stop arguing with people who aren't here when your post is addressed to me. Deal with things I say, not things you wish I said
I apologise, I believed that your posts indicated something they apparently didn't.