Assuming a kilowatt-hour of electricity has a constant sales price, solar and wind are more profitable than nuclear power, because they cost less to produce.

There may be a future for nuclear with mini-reactors, but it's not deployable yet.

Perhaps I was unclear.

With lower upfront costs, and faster deployment times that means the profits come in faster as well.

You can easily do copy cat installations. Need a little more power add more turbines and batteries as needed. Doing baby steps. Want to add a nuclear power plant and that takes a lot of commitment.

PV panels are mass produced in factories, then, you can deploy them on a single home, or as part of a large solar “farm." The size of the farms can vary tremendously, depending on available space. In addition, while it’s nice to have a source of water to wash off solar panels now and again, a nuclear plant needs to be built by a significant body of water, to drive its steam turbines.

In a drought (like most of the US is currently experiencing) the water needed for a nuclear plant may be in short supply.

• https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00849-y
• https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/climate-events-are-the-leading-cause-of-nuclear-power-outages/
• https://e360.yale.edu/digest/u.s.-nuclear-power-climate-change

cost of construction. The more expensive the project the more ways there are to scam on a project and the bigger the potential reward. Many times the crooked GQP will turn their back on a simple solution or cheap program in favor of one that's more complex, higher cost and more likely to generate more money to be loose for political donations.

However, I was trying to focus on the straightforward financial logic. Wind and solar produce greater profits, faster than nuclear.

Here in New York, a significant portion of our power is generated using hydro (“hello Niagara Falls!”) and nuclear, but I’m signed up with a commercial outfit that offers a flat discount of 10% on power generated by their solar farms. It’s amazing how many people I talk to who think “there must be a catch."

just add a tangential point. The various calculations and comparisons also sometimes do not include entire lifetime costs. That can be where the cost per kW can go off the charts because of accounting for nuclear waste storage, transportation, monitoring, clean-up etc.

Just think of how high the dollars per kW will be for Fukishima.

or small wind.
i cant put a nuke plant on my roof, but i sure can and have put solar up there.
and i reap the rewards.

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2024, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Because not everyone can put solar on their roofs.

If I recall correctly, “utility solar” is way ahead of “residential solar” as far as kWh’s generated nationwide (but definitely in New York.)