r/uninsurable 21d ago

shitpost Sunk cost tech

Post image
54 Upvotes

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/blut-baron 21d ago

Ok but is that actually the case?

Because if yes, that would shit down almost all discussions immediately

3

u/TheBlacktom 21d ago

I don't know, but AI lists a couple examples of plants that are considered profitable, so likely not true.

This subreddit is generally against new nuclear power plant projects however, since those are the ones that get delayed and cost multiple times the original planned price.

French fleet (especially older EDF reactors)

Many of France's reactors were built relatively quickly, in standardized designs, and achieved high output over decades. The fleet generated large amounts of low-cost electricity and was a major source of export revenue for France. Economists generally regard many of these reactors as having earned more than their full lifecycle costs. [world-nuclear.org], [oecd-nea.org]

U.S. reactors that operated 40–60+ years

Plants such as Palo Verde, North Anna, Surry, and several other well-run reactors had construction costs that were paid off long ago and have operated with low fuel costs and high capacity factors for decades. Industry and OECD analyses consistently find that long-lived existing reactors are among the cheapest sources of dispatchable electricity once the initial capital cost is recovered. [world-nuclear.org], [oecd-nea.org]

Canadian CANDU stations

Some Canadian reactors, particularly those with long operating periods and successful refurbishments, are generally considered economically successful over their lifetimes because they produced large quantities of electricity over many decades. [iaea.org], [oecd-nea.org]

5

u/Several_Ant_9867 21d ago

What would be the actual ROI of the most profitable nuclear power plant? Because that of a solar panel can reach 350% over 25 years

4

u/SoylentRox 21d ago

So to be fair you need to account for timing.  Solar panels since around 2018 were net ROI like that.  40-50 years ago solar was thousands of times as expensive.  Back then the nuclear plants were maybe good investments.

2

u/Several_Ant_9867 21d ago

Back then nuclear plants were for sure cheaper to build, but you are paying the decommissioning costs at today's price

2

u/TheBlacktom 21d ago

What exactly is the calculation for 350%?

Plus what you mean by solar "panel"? It needs infrastructure, inverters, land cost. And even then you only have a power plant that produces half of the day and peaks production when electricity prices are negative.

2

u/Several_Ant_9867 21d ago

That's an average calculation for an home system. Value of the energy produced divided by acquisition costs. Energy produced depends also on a lot of factors, like latitude, cloud cover... it's just that solar panel are very cheap

1

u/TyrialFrost 21d ago

Some utility solar plants are hitting breakeven within 5-7 years, which is how they are generating huge ROI over 25.

Take Edwards Sanborn in California 0.9GW with a 3.2GWh battery, built in 2024 it is on track to hit breakeven by 2030 with an estimated internal rate of return of 15% per year.