So 4x300 MWe for 20.9B CAD or 1.2 GWe for 15.9B USD or 13.2 B/GWe.
Vogtle 3 and 4 are 2x 1117 MWe for 36.8B USD, or 16.5 B/GWe.
So the price, if everything goes according to plan, is only 20% lower than the Vogle boondogle's actual price.
And given's nuclear track record, it's basically guaranteed that the 20.9B is a floor that will be easily surpassed. To say nothing of the extra cost overruns associated with a first of its kind build.
How is this remotely a good idea?
qball•9mo ago
Because we need baseload, reliable power that isn't dependent on foreign goodwill for cost-effective maintenance (which is the problem with solar- Chinese dumping makes the uneducated believe it's cost-effective, but not in a geopolitical context that could conceivably involve our largest trading partner going to war with them).
If you want clean, reliable, infinitely-sustainable energy that isn't dependent on foreign countries, and you're running out of viable places to put multi-gigawatt hydroelectric dams, this is the solution, and this is how much it costs.
If you don't like that, feel free to continue investing in natural gas.
fearmerchant•9mo ago
Nuclear advocate here. I'd also note that while natural gas is a reliable power source; the price can be very volatile.
I trade options and natgas is called the widow maker.
_aavaa_•9mo ago
> Because we need baseload
This is 20th century thinking dictated by the inflexibility of thermal generation plants.
> reliable power
Nuclear is only as reliable as it's design, operations, and maintenence. Ask the French, they lost more nuclear energy output due to poor management than Germany did by phasing out the entirety of it's fleet.
And these are unproven reactors, you'll get to find out how reliable they are after operating them.
> Chinese dumping makes the uneducated believe it's cost-effective, but not in a geopolitical context that could conceivably involve our largest trading partner going to war with them
A) I would like to see some evidence of them actually "dumping" rather than having better economies of scale.
B) Last I checked, the solar panels don't need constant fueling by the Chinese, so the US starting a war with China has little to do with whether you should build them now.
> that isn't dependent on foreign goodwill
Ontario is choosing to build an unproven technology developed, owned, and fueled by its neighbor whose president keeps talking about annexation.
> this is the solution
This is a solution, and appears to be the only one your government considered. I'm willing to bet there was no actual study including non-nuclear options. Mind you, this is the same government that tore up all of your renewable contracts when they got into power, so they're more than a little biased.
Even if nuclear is the solution you want to go with, why go with unproven technology that is more expensive and isn't build, owned, controled, or fueled, by Candians?
> If you don't like that, feel free to continue investing in natural gas.
From what I can tell, Ontario's grid has been using increasing amounts of natural gas because of its heavy reliance on nuclear and its unwillingness to use renewables.
philipkglass•9mo ago
I thought that Canada was one of the few countries with significant untapped hydroelectric potential to be developed.
This 2023 report says
The updated estimate for hydroelectric potential in northern Ontario is 3,000 - 4,000 MW. Up to an additional 1,000 MW of potential in southern Ontario was not assessed, nor was the incremental potential associated with existing hydroelectric stations, water management infrastructure or pumped storage. All of these resources remain available to expand the system as electrification creates need.
Very valid points, especially considering a project like the Bruce B reactors (large project just north of this site) were (inflation adjusted) built for around ~6B CAD / GW in the late 1970s. This is 3x the cost of that, and we're 40 years into the future.
_aavaa_•9mo ago
Vogtle 3 and 4 are 2x 1117 MWe for 36.8B USD, or 16.5 B/GWe.
So the price, if everything goes according to plan, is only 20% lower than the Vogle boondogle's actual price.
And given's nuclear track record, it's basically guaranteed that the 20.9B is a floor that will be easily surpassed. To say nothing of the extra cost overruns associated with a first of its kind build.
How is this remotely a good idea?
qball•9mo ago
If you want clean, reliable, infinitely-sustainable energy that isn't dependent on foreign countries, and you're running out of viable places to put multi-gigawatt hydroelectric dams, this is the solution, and this is how much it costs.
If you don't like that, feel free to continue investing in natural gas.
fearmerchant•9mo ago
I trade options and natgas is called the widow maker.
_aavaa_•9mo ago
This is 20th century thinking dictated by the inflexibility of thermal generation plants.
> reliable power
Nuclear is only as reliable as it's design, operations, and maintenence. Ask the French, they lost more nuclear energy output due to poor management than Germany did by phasing out the entirety of it's fleet.
And these are unproven reactors, you'll get to find out how reliable they are after operating them.
> Chinese dumping makes the uneducated believe it's cost-effective, but not in a geopolitical context that could conceivably involve our largest trading partner going to war with them
A) I would like to see some evidence of them actually "dumping" rather than having better economies of scale.
B) Last I checked, the solar panels don't need constant fueling by the Chinese, so the US starting a war with China has little to do with whether you should build them now.
> that isn't dependent on foreign goodwill
Ontario is choosing to build an unproven technology developed, owned, and fueled by its neighbor whose president keeps talking about annexation.
> this is the solution
This is a solution, and appears to be the only one your government considered. I'm willing to bet there was no actual study including non-nuclear options. Mind you, this is the same government that tore up all of your renewable contracts when they got into power, so they're more than a little biased.
Even if nuclear is the solution you want to go with, why go with unproven technology that is more expensive and isn't build, owned, controled, or fueled, by Candians?
> If you don't like that, feel free to continue investing in natural gas.
From what I can tell, Ontario's grid has been using increasing amounts of natural gas because of its heavy reliance on nuclear and its unwillingness to use renewables.
philipkglass•9mo ago
This 2023 report says
The updated estimate for hydroelectric potential in northern Ontario is 3,000 - 4,000 MW. Up to an additional 1,000 MW of potential in southern Ontario was not assessed, nor was the incremental potential associated with existing hydroelectric stations, water management infrastructure or pumped storage. All of these resources remain available to expand the system as electrification creates need.
https://www.opg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Northern-Hydr...
_aavaa_•9mo ago
kowalej•9mo ago