Nuclear power somehow always makes a loss

Source: Lazard and my estimates
N.B.  Lazard's estimates for nuclear do not include costs of implicit government insurance,
or of decommissioning, or of government guarantees of nuclear power station debt.
Solar does not include costs of storage (currently $18/MWh for 4 hours) and is before subsidies.

From Climate News Network:

Two new studies together make an eloquent case against nuclear power: that its civilian uses are inseparable from nuclear warmaking, and that it is always uneconomic and has to be subsidised by taxpayers.

The first report, by the Berlin-based German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), says that private economic interests have never played a role in nuclear power; instead the military have always been the driving force behind their construction. The report’s title sums up its contents: High-Priced and Dangerous: Nuclear Power is not an option for the Climate-Friendly Energy Mix.

The researchers calculate, after analysis of the 674 nuclear power plants built since the 1950s, that on average they make a loss of €5 billion (US$5.6 bn) each, and that is without taking into account the cost of getting rid of their radioactive waste.

The report does not simply investigate the past. It also looks ahead, reviewing the industry’s plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations, and particularly the small modular reactors (SMRs) in which the US, Canada, Russia, China and the UK are currently investing huge amounts of development money. The researchers conclude that they too are doomed to be an expensive failure.

The second study, specifically into SMRs, is by the Nuclear Consulting Group (NCG), an international team of academics and other experts [the writer of this news report is a member].  It reaches the same conclusion: that they will be expensive for the taxpayer and never live up to expectations.

The NCG, which works with Nuclear Free Local Authorities in the UK, says its opposition is based on close scrutiny of the industry. After examining all the designs of SMRs currently being developed globally, the NCG says: “It remains likely that no substantive deployment of the technology will be realised, with just a very few reactors built, at most.

“This will be despite large amounts of public money being invested in these projects and, worse, the neglect of other more viable non-nuclear options. It provides another example of the industry talking a good game but delivering little.” There are recurrent reports that SMRs are managing to break into the market, but so far without any sign of widespread success.

[Read more here]

Coal spruikers and climate denialists are in favour of nuclear, because they know damn well that reactors (in democracies) will never be built because of strong opposition by the public.  They believe that by favouring nuclear this will deter the roll-out of renewables, helping to maintain fossil fuels in the generation mix.  Solar, even with 12 hours of storage, is much cheaper than nuclear in most parts of the world.  There is, perhaps, a case for nuclear in high latitudes (north of 60 degrees) because although solar is surprisingly productive in summer, in winter, when demand is highest, it isn't.  But even there, power to gas may be the better alternative.