Cost of nuclear for dummies, and future generations

Cost of nuclear for dummies, and future generations

7 Responses

  1. Reply

    It’s an remarkable post in favor of all the web visitors;
    they will obtain advantage from it I am sure.

  2. Colin Megson Reply

    Small Modular Reactors [SMRs] are the future of nuclear power. 2026 is the date to mark the resurgence of nuclear power and signal the beginning of the end for renewable technologies.

    Strangely, quite a number of UK bodies are gearing up to almost sideline nuclear in their 2030/2050 plans on the basis of high costs and the public perception of safety problems. What they don’t seem to realise is:

    Within 8 short years, in 2026, the breakers will be thrown on the first NuScale 720 MW nuclear power plant [npp], comprising of 12 x 60 MW Small Modular Reactors [SMRs], at a cost of £3173/kW, compared to 3,200 MW Hinkley’s [current] cost of £6,125/kW. The customer is signed up and the site selected – it’s: SMRs ARE GO DATE!

    Close on NuScales tail will be the GE-Hitachi 300 MW BWRX-300 and they’re already publicising £2,450/kW for the FOAK and £1,511/kW for the NOAK – that’s 75% less, per installed kW, than the cost of Hinkley.

    860 MW Triton Knoll Offshore Windfarm will deliver just about the same amount of intermittent electricity every year as the 24/7 electricity generated every year by a GE-H BWRX-300. BUT [and there are a couple of big buts]:

    Triton Knoll will cost £2000 million, pay dividends for its 25 year lifespan and and create very few quality jobs.

    The FOAK BWRX-300 would cost £735 million, pay dividends for its 60 year design life and create many quality jobs for 3 generations.

    The ‘birth’ of SMRs will make investment in any form of renewables technology the realm of lunatics, hanging on to their fears of dangerous npps and sure in the knowledge of what Greenpeace is telling them – that ‘when’ Hinkley explodes, all of SW England will be uninhabitable for 10,000 years.

    Well that fallacy dies in 2026 too. All existing and ‘New Nuclear’ power plants are the safest electricity generating technology the UK [and the world] has ever employed, with their 10 mile radius Emergency Planning Zone [EPZ]. SMRs are 100s or even 1,000s of times safer and they will have their EPZs at the site boundary fences.

    These sites are the size of a modest out-of-town retail park and you could be picnicking safely outside of the boundary fence, while an accident/incident is being attended to on the site itself.

    2026 marks the date when the Greenpeace generated ‘nightmare’ of the humongous poisonous/radioactive cloud that can wipe out families, friends and communities in the blink of an eye, will be no more. 2026 will mark the date when all resource-wasting and environmentally-destructive renewables technologies will start to wither on the vine.

    Won’t those 2030/2050 plans look myopically stupid then!

  3. Tom Galioto Reply

    Mr. Partanen, thanks for this insight into the wild and somewhat mysterious world of financial assessments. It would appear that any energy source that is heavily front-loaded with capital costs (like nuclear) would be at a significant disadvantage in comparisons with other energy sources when using the Net Present Value (NPV) as the governing parameter (due to discounting rate assumptions). Question #1–what goes into determining what discounting rate to be used? Per your article, the discounting rate assumption can result in dramatically different NPV values, and therefore drives the results. Question #2–How is the NPV directly tied to the Levelized Cost of Electricity LCOE) concept (or are they actually one in the same)? Question #3–to factor in our responsibilities to future generations in maintaining our environment and in assuring adequate clean energy supplies, what specific values of discount rates would you recommend be used in the NPV/LCOE evaluations to fairly compare energy sources, and why?

  4. The levelized cost of energy – a misleading value – Tussen vuur en ijs Reply

    […] an alternative in my thesis. After reading again about the LCOE in an article by Rauli Partanen (Click here!), an author I like talking to when I now finally want to write out my […]

  5. 2 – Nuclear Is a Crucial Piece of the Carbon-Free Puzzle | Traffic.Ventures Social Reply

    […] the return of investment should be (note, read more from Rauli Partanen on Energy Reporters on why quick profits are often at odds with environmental goals) and are very optimistic about renewable capacity factors, which skews the price data strongly in […]

  6. Maury Markowitz Reply

    As someone who worked on the finance side (indirectly), what do you propose to “fix” this problem? Everyone putting up the money is ultimately going to discount to whatever rate they feel is appropriate, and if they don’t like the answer, they won’t put up the money. End of story.

    So, should we force banks to give out free money? Raise a new tax to pay investors the difference in RoR? Or are you hoping to convince the entire financials world to give up their standard tools?

    I see a lot of “problem” here, and not a whole lot of “solution”.

  7. markogts Reply

    Funny that you forgot to mention the decommissioning costs… put them in and use a small discount rate and let’s see what happens…

Leave a Reply

Similar articles
A Biden administration should prioritize energy security to fight climate

A Biden administration should prioritize energy security to fight climate


Americans are forecast to elect a new president in November. According to polling on June 30, Democratic candidate Joe Biden is leading Republican President Donald Trump nationally 50.9% to

Earth Day at 50: A look to the past offers hope for the planet’s future

Earth Day at 50: A look to the past offers hope for the planet’s future


Fifty years ago, on April 22, 1970, millions of people took to the streets in cities and towns across the United States, giving voice to an emerging consciousness of

Exclusive interview: Barbara Freese on coal and how industry denies climate change

Exclusive interview: Barbara Freese on coal and how industry denies climate change


Barbara Freese has been thinking about the environment for nearly her entire life. As an attorney, she witnessed how the

COVID-19’s forced de-globalization will rewire and decarbonize energy

COVID-19’s forced de-globalization will rewire and decarbonize energy


Climate change may be the most intractable psychological-sociological challenge that humanity has ever encountered. It has been occurring for decades if not centuries, yet we do not view the threat

Scroll to top
Skip to content

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.