"In December 2020 IEA and OECD NEA published a joint Projected Costs of Generating Electricity study which looks at a very broad range of electricity generating technologies based on 243 power plants in 24 countries. The primary finding was that "low-carbon generation is overall becoming increasingly cost competitive" and "new nuclear power will remain the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025". The report calculated LCOE with assumed 7% discount rate and adjusted for systemic costs of generation.[79] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The IEA is a bad joke that has been notoriously wrong in its projections for decades. Nobody in the industry takes them seriously.

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How so? I am in the industry and everyone I work with take them seriously.

Edit:

Even if you refute predictions made by the IAE, nuclear is still not as expensive as other sources of electricity. For a more specific example, the University of Waterloo released this report analyzing the Ontario grid in 2017.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/media/3776559/april-2017-the-economic-cost-of-electricity-generation-in-ontario.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAsoXhvdCAAxWtHjQIHZNIDoE4ChAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0mYlKPP07OaJlpY4uBmqZg

If you look at Table 1, you will find that nuclear costs between hydro and wind while gas and solar cost more. This is one example but it does illustrate that nuclear is not necessarily the most expensive. Things have improved for renewables since then but I believe they have for nuclear also.

[–] zik@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That page shows nuclear being way more expensive than photovoltaic solar with batteries, more expensive than wind power and more expensive than coal. So it exactly backs up my point.

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The graph on the global studies page does seem to indicate that. However, if you actually read the data and how the graph was prepared, it uses one dataset for renewables and a different dataset for nuclear and coal. Additionally, these numbers significanly differ from the IEA data which shows that nuclear is one of the least expensive. As I said in a comment below, there are other, more localized studies that show nuclear is one of the cheaper ways to produce electricity. I would hesitate to say that nuclear is the cheapest option since there are different studies with different results, but to claim that it is the most expensive would be just as misguided for the same reasons. At the end of the day, more electricity is needed as countries look to decarbonize there energy needs. Hydro, wind, and solar are effective and renewable but a stable, carbon-free solution is needed where there is insufficient hydro or geothermal and I believe nuclear fits that bill perfectly.

[–] zik@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the IEA is a lobby group. It's not like their numbers have any credibility. Like I said, nuclear is way more expensive by all numbers except fake ones.

[–] m3m3lord@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

How is it a lobby group? Do you have any sources to back up your claim or is it simply based on your bias because you do not agree with the data they put together? Again, even if you discount their data, there are plenty of other studdies that corroborate the fact that nuclear is not the most expensive method of producing electricity, are all of them somehow wrong? What you need to understand is that there are different factors that can be included which can dramatically change whether one way of producing electricity is better or worse. Nuclear has a high up front capital cost but a very low operating cost per MW. Solar and wind are cheap initially but require replacement every 10 years or more and also generally need a way to store energy if they make up a bulk of the grid. If you factor in the lifecycle and energy storage costs, they are comparable to well designed nuclear plants. I am from ontario, and nuclear has been an incredible benefit to the province.