From my years of reading about nuclear energy I have seen that a large majority of the research on forms of energy, especially in direct comparison, utilize a time period of thirty years before the capacity is no longer productive or maintainable. This is within the lifespan of solar and wind. It is half of the operating lifetime of a nuclear reactor, sixty years -- although there's been some enthusiasm by owners to extend pemits to eighty years which I believe would be unsafe when exceeding the design lifetime. If something with a lifecycle of thirty years is compared to something with a design lifetime of sixty years with an imposed thirty year lifecycle for comparison purposes but with a similar yearly cost, the result will be it's twice as expensive on a thirty year basis.
Separately, if the federal government would underwrite bonds for construction of nuclear power stations that could be sold on bond markets it would significantly reduce the interest on the financed amount.
From my years of reading about nuclear energy I have seen that a large majority of the research on forms of energy, especially in direct comparison, utilize a time period of thirty years before the capacity is no longer productive or maintainable. This is within the lifespan of solar and wind. It is half of the operating lifetime of a nuclear reactor, sixty years -- although there's been some enthusiasm by owners to extend pemits to eighty years which I believe would be unsafe when exceeding the design lifetime. If something with a lifecycle of thirty years is compared to something with a design lifetime of sixty years with an imposed thirty year lifecycle for comparison purposes but with a similar yearly cost, the result will be it's twice as expensive on a thirty year basis.
Separately, if the federal government would underwrite bonds for construction of nuclear power stations that could be sold on bond markets it would significantly reduce the interest on the financed amount.