No 2 is a fascinating study! My mother was 'taking' (eating) large amounts of raw chilli as she found it a very efficient cure for her rheumatoid arthritis - she had brilliantly reduced joint pain. BUT after a few years it caused painful and disfiguring rosacea.
She stopped the chilli and moved to acupuncture for the arthritis, which worked pretty much as well, but not something she can do herself at home for 'free'.
Since she has v low BML, I'm now pleased to see she stopped eating too much chilli!
Oh, how insensitive from my part. I didn't realize this was done to memorialize Sir Tony Hoare. Thanks for the answer, and apologies for such a frivolous question.
Upfront costs... then running costs (in the UK at least, it has to command a premium over other energy prices, to be profitable)... afterwards costs (in the UK no private company is on the hook for decommissioning their nuclear plants, the population will pick up that cost through taxes)...
But sure, nuclear is cheap if you ignore all those things.
Which to we ignore for coal? Cost to build a new plant? Cost to run? The decommissioning costs? (Yes we ignore the externalities, and no I don't think we should burn coal. My point is Nuclear has yet to pay its way anywhere in the world, without heavy heavy govt support - far exceeding that given to renewables)
Some figures on running costs:
Coal costs about £62 per MWh - (£31 for the coal and £31 for the CO2 premium we already charge the energy producers).
As a fossil fuel comparison, Gas costs about £114 per MWh.
Nuclear - Hinkley C will cost about £128 per MWh - but likely to be even higher when it comes online. And we will be on the hook for this price as long as it runs, no matter how cheap renewables are.
> As a fossil fuel comparison, Gas costs about £114 per MWh.
You're comparing the cost for coal as baseload to the cost for natural gas as a peaker plant. When using both for baseload, natural gas is cheaper than coal and emits less CO2.
Meanwhile renewables are cheaper than both until they represent enough of the grid that you have to contend with intermittency:
Which doesn't happen until it gets close to being a majority of generation, and which most countries aren't at yet so can add more without incurring significant costs for firming.
In other words, the currently cheapest way to operate a power grid, if that's all you care about, is to have something like half renewables and half natural gas. Add some nuclear -- even just, don't remove any -- and CO2 goes down by a lot because then you're only using natural gas for peaking/firming instead of baseload, while still having costs in line with historical norms.
The obviously bad thing many places are doing is shutting down older power plants without building enough new capacity in anything else to meet existing demand, and then prices go up. But that's not because you're using e.g. solar instead of coal, it's because you're trying to use demand suppression through higher prices instead of coal. It's easy to get rid of coal as long as you actually build something else.
>Which to we ignore for coal? Cost to build a new plant? Cost to run? The decommissioning costs? (Yes we ignore the externalities, and no I don't think we should burn coal. My point is Nuclear has yet to pay its way anywhere in the world, without heavy heavy govt support - far exceeding that given to renewables)
Yes, all three. Building a nuke plant without the additional concern for outcome that we put on nuke would be relatively inexpensive. It's just concrete, pumps, and a turbine. It's a ismilar level of complexity to a coal plant. Same with running cost, same with decommissioning costs.
Suppose we designed, operated, and budgeted every coal plant to make accidents like this a statistical impossibility. Not very unlikely, that's not the standard we hold nuke to. An impossiblity. Imagine what that would cost.
A nuke plant is concrete, pumps, fuel storage and (re)processing, a huge pressure vessel, some very complex moderator machinery, and some of the most complex industrial plant control on the planet.
Even if you ramped down the safety, it still wouldn't be cheap or simple.
"Fuel storage and reprocessing" isn't that much of the cost and a significant proportion of that is compliance costs and extreme safety measures. The pressure vessel is likewise a small minority of the cost.
Industrial control systems are fundamentally sensors, actuators and a computer. None of those is actually that expensive. Nobody should be paying a billion dollars for a valve.
Older reactors have somewhat high operating costs because they're so old, many of them were built more than half a century ago. Newer reactors often have higher costs because of the lack of scale. If you only build one or two of something you have to amortize the development costs over that many units, mistakes that require redoing work are being made for the first time, etc. Build more of them and the unit cost goes down.
Nuclear, inclusive of construction costs: ~$181/MWh, only better than natural gas because no CO2. Nuclear, cost of continuing to operate an existing reactor once it's already built: $31/MWh, basically the cheapest thing on the market, half the cost of continuing to operate an existing natural gas plant (because you need so much less fuel).
What this implies is that if you build a nuclear plant you're going to want to continue operating it for 80 years, and even then you probably want to just modernize it again instead of actually decommissioning it.
The long-term average returns from ordinary investments (e.g. S&P 500) are ~10%/year, implying that even if you require decommissioning to be prefunded (unlike any competing form of power generation), the amount of money you need is less than 0.05% of what the cost will be in 80 years. Adding $500 million in decommissioning costs isn't $500M in net present costs, it's only $250 thousand in net present costs, because you take the $250k and add 80 years worth of interest (1.10^80) which multiplies your starting capital by more than a factor of 2000.
It's really just the construction, and that's in significant part because you have to build more of them to get economies of scale for building them.
This is disingenuous. Bad math is focusing on the one part of nuclear power which is relatively cheap (fuel) and ignoring the rest where the majority of the cost is, which is what you did.
I wasnt comparing nuclear power to gas anyway I was comparing it to solar and wind which produce no CO2. FIVE times cheaper LCOE.
Nuclear power needs anyway to be paired with dispatchable energy source like batteries or gas just as solar and wind do.
It isnt a competitor with gas or batteries it is a complement to gas and batteries, just like solar and wind.
> Bad math is focusing on the one part of nuclear power which is relatively cheap (fuel) and ignoring the rest where the majority of the cost is, which is what you did.
The majority of the cost is construction, which is expensive when you're trying to amortize the costs of a plant design over only one or two plants instead of a hundred, which is what I said.
> FIVE times cheaper LCOE.
Five times cheaper as long as you want the most output when the market price is the lowest and the least output when it's the highest. And "five times" is with existing subsidies.
> Nuclear power needs anyway to be paired with dispatchable energy source like batteries or gas just as solar and wind do.
Nuclear power is baseload. All three of those do different things.
Suppose you have 10 GW of minimum load (e.g. late evening to sunrise) and 20 GW of peak load (e.g. late afternoon to early evening). Then nuclear is good for the former and solar+storage is good for the difference between the former and the latter.
To begin with, solar output actually partially aligns with the latter. Load is higher during the day. It's also high just after sunset, but that's only for a couple hours, and then you don't need a lot of batteries to cover it, which you can charge with more solar. But you'd need a lot more batteries (or gas plants) to make it through the whole night. That kind of sucks if load looks like it currently does, and it really sucks if you want people to switch from fossil fuels to electric heat, because then the highest load is going to be in the hours of darkness on the days with the least sunlight.
Meanwhile it's not just a problem that there is no solar output when it's dark. Sometimes renewable output is low for an extended period of time. It could be at 20% of typical for a month. Having enough batteries to last a month rather than just overnight is prohibitively expensive. So instead you'd have to build five times as much generation, which is only the same cost as nuclear because of government subsidies (which would require a much larger government budget allocation if you tried to build that much of them), and only if you're using the recent high price of nuclear that comes from building very few plants instead the lower prices that would be possible by doing it at scale.
And even using the subsidized price for renewables against the current price for nuclear, if you actually tried to build five times the capacity in renewables, the "generates the most when the market price is the lowest" thing would destroy you. The price on most days would then be zero because of huge oversupply and you'd have to recover the same total cost as current nuclear from only the days when your output is lowest.
Meanwhile if you use nuclear for what it is, i.e. baseload, and build only as much of it as you have minimum load throughout the day, it not only doesn't require any storage, it avoids the need for solar to use storage to supply power at night. Then you use solar for the incremental load during the day, to charge the batteries to use for the incremental load in the early evening and for charging electric vehicles by putting chargers in workplaces.
Are you implying that a coal plant doesn't have literally every single one of these? I have done industrial controls engineering for both and coal plants are actually quite complex. Take my word for it, they're well within spitting distance of one another, at the most basic level. The only difference is the enormous level of surety provided in a nuke plant design.
Some peoolle have automated ebay/amazon leveraging set ups - for eg the cheapest I could find a brand name snorkel set on ebay was £19.99 - and since i often find ebay the cheapest, I bought without futher searching.
3 days later the package arrived from amazon, complete with packing slip, where I found it cost £16.
Searching the sellers account they had thousands of random listings - where I assume they can leverage a small profit. Items came and went quickly from their inventory, I assume as amazon prices fluctated.
I'd never make porridge with water at home - but in winter in the office I used to cover a 1/3 bowl of oats with boiling water and then microwave for just 30 seconds.
Once the oirriois cooked (it really should be already) add a teaspoon or two of salted butter to the middle and stir, then sugar to taste.
Suprisingly delicious, quick and repeatable.
I won a few people over who couldn't believe that porridge made with water would be any good, but it was a great winter staple, especially after cycling in, in the cold.
As a USian, I disbelieve in Geographical Indications in food names, thank you very much. There's no reason to restrict Easy Cheese vendors to cheese processors in the Easy region of Wisconsin or for Cheez Whiz to be limited to the Whiz region of Chicago. :P
Had this recently, bought a dehumidifier for a good price, marked as new - arrived and had obviously been opened and didn't work. Out of a desire to have a dehumidifier sooner than later I was about to open it up when I saw it already had been, so I opened a return instead and sent it back.
I can only assume it is worth it for the seller to sell untested goods as new, a good number must work long enough for the buyer to be happy.
I still remember Fry's Electronics and trying to find anything that hadn't been opened-returned-reshinkwrapped. Often it was impossible. Not sure why they had so many but eh whatever, it mostly worked fine.
All cars in Germany need an inspection every 24 months (or 36 months from new) - so you'd expect other electric cars to have similar issues here if that was the case.
Other brands will have dealerships do "pre-inspection" work. The data may be skewed if certain brands are more likely to have pre-inspection done. Some brands even offer it as a free service - maybe they know the public looks at these numbers. Tesla doesn't care, or doesn't have the infrastructure to offer the same service.
Other brands force you into doing yearly/x-1000-km inspections to keep your warranty, even for EVs. If you were to skip their inspection cycle, they may decide not to cover the issue, even if it's clearly a warranty case.
You go to the garage for a Tesla only if it's broken.
In my experience with my M3 2019, I think many people don't even realize they have issues, because the cars are generally silent and decently insulated (the Highland even more so). Also, lots of people pay no attention to sounds and general driving feeling their cars make (e.g. steering wheel shaking, clicks doing certain actions, ...). The main/biggest issues with well-kept Teslas are basically suspensions, for which there is no monitoring/sensors, so the car cannot report to you that something's off.
Example #1: I asked the Tesla service center in Dec 2024 for an inspection, because I was leaving for a country with no service centers. Everything was fine after 6y and ~60'000km, they told me to just break every now and then because otherwise the brake rotors will rust. So it'd have likely failed the TUV inspection only for having a little rust on the rotors, otherwise perfectly fine and driveable.
Example #2: last year (after changing country) my rear axle nuts came a bit loose, not enough to be dangerous but enough that the axle/wheel hub interface would have some play (which could potentially become dangerous if you leave it alone for a few thousand kms). You'd hear a clunk from the back when applying torque from a standstill. My wife and mother in law kept insisting everything was fine, that they couldn't hear anything, that it was all in my head. Took it to the mechanic: rear axle nuts were loose, right more than the left one (and I heard the clunk from rear-right). Fixed with 30min labor. Different people, different reactions.
Now I have the front-right wheel clicking at times that is likely the same issue or may have something to do with suspensions, but again, if you ask my wife, everything's fine. And without mandated inspection cycles, you only learn of issues at the mandatory state inspection.
Someone posted a similar story on one of the other times the 500 mile email was posted - where a car would fail to start if the owner bought strawberry ice-cream from the store, but would work if they have vanilla. I love the processes that go into finding the actual issue (regardless of if the ice cream story is true!): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cone-of-silence/
OT, but I find this a perfect example why "data-driven design" is an empty term if you don't know what it's being designed for - i.e. what metrics are used to evaluate it in the end.
Both, optimizing for ease of shopping and optimizing for stringing the customer along as long as possible rely on the same purchase data - they just use diametrically opposite metrics for evaluation.
She stopped the chilli and moved to acupuncture for the arthritis, which worked pretty much as well, but not something she can do herself at home for 'free'.
Since she has v low BML, I'm now pleased to see she stopped eating too much chilli!
reply