The Economics of Nuclear Power: A Closer Look

💠 Investment in renewable energy totaled $273 billion in 2018, bringing the total amount invested to $2.3 trillion. With nuclear power providing 61% of its electricity, France emits only 32 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Germany, a nation that has spent billions on wind energy, is replacing all of its nuclear power facilities with natural gas plants. It makes obvious sense why others support nuclear energy over renewables. Building a nuclear power station with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts would cost $6 billion.
Building a natural gas-powered plant would cost only $920 per kilowatt. Each full block unit represents $5.6 million; blocks can be partially filled to represent smaller fractions. If they both run for an hour, they will each generate 1,000 megawatt hours of energy. Because the energy market is complex, it is not easy to calculate the revenue from this number. Nuclear power has one major advantage: its fuel is relatively inexpensive simply by virtue of needing much less of it than natural gas does. Before even talking about the safety concerns, nuclear energy just becomes a tremendously tough investment to justify over time, leading to an even larger run into the negative before income begins.
Thanks and Enjoy 🔥 🔥
🎥 #Nuclear #Energy #Economics
▌│█║▌║▌║▌║▌║█│▌

[@detectiveofmoneypolitics]

0:01 economic investigator is following this very important milestone of energy efficiency and clean energy of Nuclear cheers Frank 😊

[@orionstark]

You do not need to ramp down a nuclear power plant if it is being used to run waste conversion facilities. With enough cheap electricity it becomes economically viable to convert refuse into biodiesel and other useful hydrocarbons.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

The economics of renewables will dramatically increase our electric rates and insure massive rolling blackouts. Nuclear will be key for our future.

[@MrSingularity]

I believe this too. Thorium could be an interesting alternative aswell.

[@brandonmesser2503]

Do these numbers factor in the subsidies that are now given to nuclear power? Remember, solar and wind have been highly subsidies.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@LMB222 In case you didn't get the Greenie memo, fossil fuels are to be eliminated and they don't like nuclear even though they can't come up with a good reason to be anti-nuke. Without fossil fuels or nuclear, we face a very grim future.

[@clarkkent9080]

@@brandonmesser2503 You mean like the $2 billion of taxpayer welfare given to Terrapower and NuSclae to build their test reactors that they advertised as only costing $1 billion each. Or the $36 billion that Biden has for bribing old nuclear power plat investor owned utilities to keep them running. Or the Trillions (in today dollars) spent over the last 70 years by the government designing, building, and operating every reactor type known.

[@gamingwithkiddo]

Very similar nuclear economics video. Similar to Real Engineering's video. Interesting.

[@gerrtryks2944]

I think Thorium is the best ramp it up

[@petermarsh4993]

Around 3:00 you showed that Nuclear would cost 6 $bn and gas $980 bn. I think your zeroes are out of whack. I bn = 1,000,000,000 {nine zeroes} but your cost for gas has twelve zeroes. {trillions} It’s hard to keep concentration beyond this point if simple maths is so poorly scrutinised in what should be a scientific presentation.

[@joshua1557]

'promo sm'

[@MrThatwasepic]

Plagiarism