All costs of nuclear capacity are fixed, save fuel, and fuel costs essentially nothing.
Well, no:
Particularly not when you consider waste post-processing and final storage (which normally faces substantial cost overruns). And it is not altogether self-evident that current storage solutions can be scaled up arbitrarily without hitting a point of escalating costs, as they are every bit as dependent on limited geological resources as oil extraction is.
Oh, and uranium prices do not necessarily reflect the full social and ecological cost of extraction, when said extraction is done in third-world countries where both life and pollution are cheap.
And while we're at it, nukes also require idling backup plants, because you cannot expect to always be able to schedule maintenance in periods where the plants are not needed (and that's just the scheduled maintenance - any emergency shutdowns, which kinda by definition cannot be scheduled, come on top of this). Since nuclear comes in somewhat bigger chunks of generating capacity, it is not really self-evident that nuclear needs less backup capacity than wind.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
And it is not altogether self-evident that current storage solutions can be scaled up arbitrarily without hitting a point of escalating costs, as they are every bit as dependent on limited geological resources as oil extraction is. Not in the slightest. Good enough bedrock is by no means rare. They are limited in the same way the global supply of gravel is finite. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Since nuclear comes in somewhat bigger chunks of generating capacity, it is not really self-evident that nuclear needs less backup capacity than wind.
Furthermore, because it comes in such large chunks, with such long lead times for installation nuclear is always behind or ahead of the demand curve and spends of lot of time stranded. Whereas, wind and solar can be added almost continuously with demand making them even more attractive.
Not installing wind turbines which will begin to be delivering power later in year one of the build-out on the promise that in four years the first power will begin to be delivered and in ten years you'll be getting close to your target is just a substantially different case to evaluate than not building wind turbines on the promise that in four year you'll be getting about the amount of power you want from nuclear. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Furthermore, lead times need not at all be long. In a national effort with a solid competence base the plants will be built in about 5 years.
Four years is the minimum time to build one reactor.
We've gone from a statement that in the most direct reading suggests that all reactors desired may be built by a country "with a solid competence base" in about five years, so long as its part of a national effort, to one that makes it clear that four is an absolute bare minimum time to build one reactor.
Whether fifteen years is a long or short time, it is appreciably longer than five years. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
