Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
that's 239 million dollars in yearly revenue. Meaning, in 6 years an NPP has covered its capital investment.
That means the NPP would cost only 1.434 billion dollars. I'd rather put that number at 2 billion dollars which means the investment is covered in 8,4 years.

Still, then it operates with almost no fuel cost, and only with O&M costs for another 51,6 years.

A very good deal, in my opinion.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 10:58:50 AM EST
I still can't figure out the discrepancy between the construction cost of an NPP (1,200-1,500 per MW) and the total cost of a nuclear project (~2,000 per MW). They can't mean financinng because financing costs much more than this and is much too variable anyways. So what can they mean? Grounds preparation? Generators? Surely the cooling pool doesn't cost that much.

Another excellent reason to invest in nuclear power, even if it's no more cost-effective than either conservation or wind turbines, is in order to build up expert knowledge. Conservation will never be able to magic steel and concrete into existence. And wind turbines will never be able to provide 100% of all energy. If the costs and benefits are roughly equal then nuclear must be considered to have a decisive advantage.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 11:29:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series