by Starvid » Sat 24 Nov 2007, 13:31:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he UK could replace its entire grids capacity with around 40 nuclear plants at a cost of $75 billion dollars. Over a 7 year build programe thats just under $11 billion a year. i.e. Nothing for govenment that has a revenue of $900 billion. The issue with nuclear is not if it is affordable for the goverment, it clearly is, the issue is number 1 governments don't supply power to citizens and 2 is nuclear the most optimum choice.
How big would those reactors be?
Because if they are big ones you are looking at more like $150-200 for 40 reactors. The last few years have seen massive cost inflation due to increasing demand and supply bottlenechs, not to mention dollar devaluation.
Still, while governments don't supply power, they might well finance and maybe also own power plants. That's the best way to run nuclear energy as it minimize capital costs, which are the dominating costs for nuclear.
Still, even if we look at $200 billion (£100 billion), that's just 100 billion/60 million= £1667 per citizen. £6667 for a family of four. That's nothing, especially if you pay it over 15 years, a reasonable time for a strong and fast program. £444 per family and year for 15 years.
And this isn't even an expense. It's an investement which will earn the money back reasonably fast, and then turn into a pure money printer.
It's a win-win proposal.