• hh93@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah but even though we’re using the cheapest Uranium possible atomic power is STILL much more expensive than renewables - I wonder how insane the prices would be if you only took Uranium from good sources.

    Also those costs almost never include the cost of securing the waste for thousands of years since you can’t just leave the waste laying around out of fear of dirty bombs.

    Sure it looks decent in a vacuum but with all the factors playing into it from Uranium being a limited resource that costs a lot to the waste-management it’s just much more expensive than just spending the money you’d need to buy one plant on renewables and energy-storages that are also ready to go a lot faster…

    • uint8_t@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      the price of atomic energy is like 10% coupled to the price of uranium. the equipment, the salaries, the security measures, all those things are so much more expensive compared to the fuel.

      people rarely grasp what 4 magnitudes of energy density increase mean.

      • hh93@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah but how much more is Uranium if it’s mined in Canada compared to the one from Niger or Russia?

        sure it’s not the main cost-driver but it’s not irrelevant either.

        Also: an installed solar-panel is very cheap in maintenance - and most of the running costs of are heavily influenced by inflation, too It just doesn’t make sense to push for building more atomic reactors - keeping the ones already there running IS making sense but building new ones that may start producing energy in 10 years AND are massively expensive is just not a reasonable investment

        • uint8_t@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          solar alone is never going to cover your needs. the moment you add the cost of battery storage, nuclear is definitely cheaper. yes, even new construction. for now. when the cost of batteries go down to 1/10th of what it’s today, this might change of course.

        • AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah but how much more is Uranium if it’s mined in Canada compared to the one from Niger or Russia?

          Consider the cost from fuel is not mainly for uranium ore, but for fuel manufacturing and processing. Like taking the ore and transformer them in pellets fuel.

          May uranium ore double in price the increase of cost for nuclear would be less than 0,005€/kWh

          start producing energy in 10 years AND are massively expensive is just not a reasonable investment

          How can Japan build a reactor in 36 month but we can’t? How can other countries finance favouribly nuclear power (nuclear is the energy source that most of all the others suffer discount rated) but we can’t?

          Nuclear gave France one of the cheapest electricity price in Europe, but we don’t want to retry because we don’t feel we can achieve it?

          Side note, solar panels have problems too as their carbon footprint could be 3 times higher than expected