I'm not sure where the logic is here, you are making an assertion without any supporting evidence. What sort of logic can you provide to back up your assertion? Any such reasoning must also include actual numbers and costs.
> I'm not sure where the logic is here, you are making an assertion without any supporting evidence.
You might want to take your own advice. You did the exact same ting, make an assertion without supporting evidence, in your previous comment.
> What sort of logic can you provide to back up your assertion? Any such reasoning must also include actual numbers and costs
Nuclear power was built with an average cost of $2-3 billion dollars per GWe of capacity when nuclear was built at scale during the late 1960s through much of the 1980s [1]. The US was building nuclear plants at a rate of several plants per year, rather than several plants per decade. The same pattern holds true in France. During the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s, plants of the same design were built in serial production. Now, when they're building plants one or two at a time it's more expensive.
There's a clear pattern of cheaper plants when built at scale, and this pattern holds true across the two main nuclear power producers.
I wasn't the one who said my assertion was true because of "logic"
You seem to be backing up my point with your claims. Nuclear has consistently gotten more expensive over time. The designs you point to from the 1970s will never be built again, because nuclear engineers realized their flaws and don't want to build them again.
With each new generation of nuclear, it gets more expensive, not less. As we refine the designs, we spend more per GW, not less. And not just a little bit more, but massively more. Even if we build the AP1000 serially, do you think it could reach $3B/GW? That's a huge hike in reasoning, and I'm not sure where in the long long Wikipedia article for nuclear power it states that serially production of the same design could drop costs by a factor or 4 (or more).
Everywhere it has been studied, nuclear has a negative learning rate. See, for example, Figure 1 and the many articles it cites:
> You seem to be backing up my point with your claims. Nuclear has consistently gotten more expensive over time.
And we're also building fewer nuclear plants over time. Let's revisit your point:
> Even worse, nuclear very clearly gets more expensive the more if it we build, not less expensive.
This is not only untrue, it is the opposite of true. The more of it is built, the less expensive it is. The less of it is built, the more expensive it is.
You're right that nuclear has gotten more expensive. But that's because we're building less of it. If what you said were true - that nuclear get more expensive the more we build it - then today's nuclear plants should be cheaper than the ones built in the 1970s and 1980s during the nuclear boom.
> Even if we build the AP1000 serially, do you think it could reach $3B/GW? That's a huge hike in reasoning, and I'm not sure where in the long long Wikipedia article for nuclear power it states that serially production of the same design could drop costs by a factor or 4 (or more).
It's not a huge hike in reasoning. It's based on the price history of previous plant construction. Click on those plants built in the 1970s and early 80s. Many were built at a cost of only $2B. AP1000s are fundamentally not much different than previous PWR designs. Iterative improvements extend life and generate a bit more power, but the overall layout is the same.
In short we did build nuclear plants at scale, and it was 4-5x cheaper. This is a claim based on demonstrable patterns in price history.
"greater costs over time" wasn't what you claimed. What you wrote was:
> nuclear very clearly gets more expensive the more if it we build, not less expensive.
We've been building less nuclear not more. So if what you say is true, costs should have been going down over time. The reality is that nuclear is cheaper when built at scale. The larger number of plants being built together was cheaper than a handful of plants.
Your own source shows this. Look at this graph [1]. You see that cluster of plants around 1970? When we built a lot of nuclear, it was a lot less expensive. $1-2,000 per KW of capacity, or $1-2B per GW. This was actually cheaper than the figures I originally cited, thanks for the source I'll be sure to use it to demonstrate how nuclear is cheaper when built at scale in the future.
