this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
48 points (59.2% liked)

Science Memes

20727 readers
416 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone
48
Not a single one (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 day ago by einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

From Wikipedia

In 2019, the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a regulated industry 4.3% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 6.6%) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[63] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40-year lifetime.[64]

The article discusses why that number is probably flawed and relies on cherry picked data, but it seems somewhat close to profitability. Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh (already cheaper than some of US) should be viable, yeah?

[–] einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

40-year lifetime

That dosent include the cost of maintaining the radioactive trash for the next few million years.

[–] polotype@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

First of all, go fuck yourself. Now that we are reay for a nice and constructive discussion,

Maintaining trash has a negligible cost.

Nobody gaf about costs when the whole ecosystem we know is at risk

It will be much cheaper to replace fossil fuels by nuclear because one of them is putting the whole biosphere at risk while the other is benign

Now le me reiterate, take the most painful object you can find and shove it up your ass. Half of the points you made in this comment section contradict themselves, you are a capitalist shittling. ;)

[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh

Can we assume that, after factoring in the actual portion that the accounting says goes to the power plant itself? The economics of utility scale electricity includes both generation and transmission, so you can't just take that retail price and assume it all goes to the power plant that produced the electricity.

Wholesale prices tend to stay below 10 cents in most parts of the country, although it sometimes spikes when grids are under strain. I think that's probably a more fair assumption of how much the power plants themselves are paid for their production.