A sneaky trick to make nuclear look expensive is to evaluate cost over, say, a ten-year window. Renewables are quick to build but don't last long - say, a year to add 4.5GW of capacity (1.5GW generation) and they life-expire after twenty.https://twitter.com/chrispydog/status/1057622173399998464 …
-
Show this thread
-
A 1.5GW nuclear plant takes five years to build - and then lasts at least sixty. If you're only evaluating the ten-year timeframe though, it looks a lot worse than it is - which is why you need to evaluate on total lifecycle costs, not picking and choosing.
1 reply 9 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
I'd wager that the cost of nuclear and renewables over the full lifecycle would be about the same. Add in backup, firming, and transmission expansions for the latter and the economics end up suffering.
2 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread
Replying to @LindsayPB
also theres stuff like environmental impact of producing PV panels which gets swept under the rug a lot
6:26 AM - 31 Oct 2018
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.