Windmil blades need to be replaced far more often than anything even half that expensive at nuclear facilities and require huge costs in chemicals and transportation. Off shore blades need even more frequent replacement. The best gelcoats in the world arent going to stave off salty air and water spray for long, and as soon as water gets in one small spot, the entire composite begins to delaminate. You don't pay as much down the line with nuclear and you dont have to worry about offsetting the carbon output of manufacturing new blades so frequently.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, you just pay out the nose up front.

If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don't know why I should pick nuclear. It's going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can't secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.

A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Perhaps making the highest monetary ROI isn't the only thing to consider when it comes to energy generation during a climate crisis?

[–] frezik@midwest.social -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that's going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.

Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.

That reason ain't getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wdym skilled labor? I mean, nuclear mostly take bog standard constructions and the experts cannot be "repurposed" for renewables as well.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn't take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn't.

The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.

Renewables don't take much skilled labor at all. It's putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, it seems normal for big structure constructions to take 5 years at least..

About bog standard construction, I meant not standardized nuclear, but that many parts of it is just constructions

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I guess you are talking about US, since 5 years is standard from beginning constructions.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.

This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Interesting, that was not what happened in my country. Sometimes it does take 8 years from allowance to finishing, but that's it.