At least $60 billion and 14+ years from signing contracts to finishing construction, all for a 3.2 GW nuclear power plant. Whoof.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/edf-seeks-to-raise-up-to-4bn-to-finish-delayed-hinkley-point-c
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/edf-seeks-to-raise-up-to-4bn-to-finish-delayed-hinkley-point-c
Comments
Their own must recent project, the first in 25yrs, came in at four times it's original cost and time.
As solar + battery continues to get cheaper, it's harder and harder for nuclear to stack up.
Nuclear is on demand: how much energy needed, when needed. The batteries needed for S+W to achieve that aren't factored into cost
Nuclear's only comp is fossil fuels, *IF* all the fuel ever needed existed on site & zero emission disposal were priced in.
Nuclear is expensive because it’s the only power source where all the externalities and safety concerns are priced in.
Everyone wants to make an either/or argument, but I’m always insisting both need to be moved forward.
There won’t be a time when nuclear power won’t have its uses. Spaceships/submarines, situations with power spikes or off grid.
In terms of grid electricity, I forsee a future where distributed generation/storage, load shifting, and interconnectors get us most of the way there.
V2X needs to play a key role. In 10yrs time most of us will own an EV that can run our house for days.
It's why we don't have district heating/cooling.
Lake Michigan could heat/cool every house in Milwaukee. But we'd rather burn dinosaur food.
https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9242/
Perhaps to try to counter the ugly reality of nuclear economics and timelines?
Perfect doesn't happen long term. We might operate one nuclear power plant for 10,000 years flawlessly, but when there are hundreds...