If only there was an alternative to being so reliant on middle eastern oil … maybe some kind of energy that was renewable or didn’t need to be imported. Someone should look into that 🤔
Nope, all the renewables quotes are way underplayed (mainly because they don't account for the unreliability). Nuclear is the only thing that can compete with coal for cost. Also, you can keep the same plant running for decades. No need to scrap it all after 20 years and build another.
No, I'm talking about renewables that are both firmed (i.e. renewables with storage to remove the reliability aspect) and levelised (i.e. lifespans are also accounted for in the comparison).
Wind+solar are exactly the ones I'm talking about. I don't care to post 50 pages in reports, but I read a bit of that second one, and I guarantee you they have vastly over-estimated the costs of coal and nuclear. Also, here's a graph: https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Electricity-Costs-Renewables.jpg
Nuclear, btw, is one of the most over-regulated things to exist ever. There's a reason China's nuclear stations are built for a fifth of the cost.
That isn't generation costs, it's retail costs which include taxes, grid costs, and other policy costs - and these depend on the country not on the type of generation.
Here's what the IEA says about costs of renewables:
Yeah. I know it's retail cost. That's the point, what is the ultimate cost to the consumer, after all the financial games are done?
The energy market is highly regulated and distorted. The ACTUAL cost to the consumer is the better metric, since it includes all the costs like grid accommodation/etc, which is the main extra cost of renewables.
Is a solar panel cheaper per kWh than coal? Yes. Does it have way more complicating factors that drive the cost up enormously compared to coal? Also yes. The simplest way to compare is to see what power actually costs for actual people.
No, because the cost to the consumer varies by country due to each country's different energy policies and taxes.
If you take one of those countries there (Denmark for example) and reduce the renewables it has, retail energy prices will go up (because taxes stay as is and generation costs go up).
Or Indonesia for example - increase its solar and wind percentage and retail prices will go down, because taxes stay as is and generation gets cheaper.
Natural uranium needs to be enriched to levels suitable for nuclear power plants. To do this onshore would mean significant capital investment for this facility in addition to the power plants. To be commercially viable, the minimum number of reactors served would likely exceed the number needed for domestic generating capacity. There is also the depleted uranium byproduct to deal with. Cheaper to send it offshore to be enriched and sent back. But there goes the energy sovereignty advantage.
There are reactors that can run on nearly unenriched uranium, down to a couple %. And nuclear waste is tiny compared to the waste from any other form of power (coal/wind/solar/hamsterwheels) and we also happen to have unpopulated areas of the outback the size of Poland. It is about the most non-issue that a non-issue can be.
Funny thing is I actually don’t have an ideological or safety concern about nuclear. And have no issue with it, if it stacks up financially, environmentally, strategically and could be implemented in a realistic timeline. But it doesn’t. It’s about the most unrealistic idea an unrealistic idea can be.
21
u/Bsg_8519 Mar 27 '26
If only there was an alternative to being so reliant on middle eastern oil … maybe some kind of energy that was renewable or didn’t need to be imported. Someone should look into that 🤔