We still have many of those reactors built in the 1970s. They are linked in the lazard data above as ‘paid for’ reactors. They are $29 a megawatt-hour. Solar hits as low as $31 a megawatt-hour, and natural gas $28 in the same ‘paid for case’.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
My other point was that if other nations could do it—not all of them have the same regulatory scheme. If other nations could build reactors at a fraction of the price they would benefit. And China has a strong incentive if this were true—they have a major pollution problem with coal. But, “the industry has not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016”.
from the article you linked
The 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant shocked Chinese officials and made a strong impression on many Chinese citizens. A government survey in August 2017 found that only 40% of the public supported nuclear power development.
It seems perfectly reasonable to believe China too can suffer from regulatory failure due to public misconception. In fact, given it’s state-driven economy, wouldn’t we expect market forces to be even less effective at finding low-cost solutions than in Western countries? Malinvestment seems to be a hallmark of the current Chinese system.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
Yes. I do claim that. Even if the reactors were ‘free’ they are still not better than solar/wind. So if the regulatory agencies decided to raise the accepted radiation doses by many orders of magnitude, and to just stop requiring any protections at all—ok to build a nuclear reactor in a warehouse—I am saying it wouldn’t be cost effective.
If only we had a real world example of such a regime. Oh wait, we do.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
from the article you linked
It seems perfectly reasonable to believe China too can suffer from regulatory failure due to public misconception. In fact, given it’s state-driven economy, wouldn’t we expect market forces to be even less effective at finding low-cost solutions than in Western countries? Malinvestment seems to be a hallmark of the current Chinese system.
Your claim here is that under optimal regulatory policy we could not possibly do better today than with 1970′s technology?
Yes. I do claim that. Even if the reactors were ‘free’ they are still not better than solar/wind. So if the regulatory agencies decided to raise the accepted radiation doses by many orders of magnitude, and to just stop requiring any protections at all—ok to build a nuclear reactor in a warehouse—I am saying it wouldn’t be cost effective.
If only we had a real world example of such a regime. Oh wait, we do.