The editors of Bloomberg use their last editorial of 2018 to promote nuclear power:
Nuclear accounts for almost 60 percent of emissions-free power in the U.S., and when plants shut down, utilities mostly turn to fossil fuels to fill the void. More than one-third of the country’s plants, representing 22 percent of total nuclear capacity, are either scheduled to close or at risk of closure within the next five to 10 years, says a new UCS study. This could lead to a 4-6 percent increase in carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035.
Nuclear power is expensive, and it’s under pressure from market forces — notably, the falling price of solar and wind power. Then why not simply let it lose market share to those safe, clean fuels? Because wind and solar can’t immediately fill the gap. They still account for less than 8 percent of energy produced in the U.S. (nuclear is 20 percent). It’s crucial that their growth displaces coal and natural gas, not nuclear.
In addition wind and solar require backup power, either nuclear or fossil fuel. I’m not sure how one can reconcile taking steps to reduce climate change and opposition to nuclear energy.
Because Warmists are Luddites wedded to radically reduced consumption of power by all but the anointed. But even if their opposition evaporated there’s still insurance and NIMBY. This nation will have less nuclear power, not more, as plants are decommissioned.
And if the new leftists have their way we’d best have ourselves wood stoves.
“The median duration from inception to completion and commissioning is 15 years across the world’s nuclear fleet.”
https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-approximately-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant
The time frame is simply too long to make a reasonable financial analysis.
The barriers to installing small modular nuclear reactors are regulatory not financial or technical.
“The barriers to installing small modular nuclear reactors are regulatory not financial or technical.”
An even more unpredictable factor.
However, Roy, its done all the time, especially in the process industries. And those have far more unpredictable demand functions.
Nuclear power expansion is a pipe-dream. No one wants to own it, no one wants to pay for it, no one is willing to accept the liabilities, no one wants the waste, and no one wants it within ten miles of their homes. The VC Summer debacle has killed any chance whatsoever for a nuclear component in America’s future power generation. Private investors will not pony up the cash for it.
“no one wants the waste”
Nebraska was in court for 15 years over that. Offered development, jobs, payments. No one would accept it, and this is low level waste, like the scrubs worn by staff in radiology depts. of hospitals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Interstate_Low-Level_Radioactive_Waste_Compact