Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power.
GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse.
For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws:
> Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life?
> The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoing costs to annual costs which is then divided
by annual production. The capital cost component of a technology is converted to an annual
repayment to the debt and equity providers. The annual repayment amount is determined using
the economic life and the weighted average cost of capital. The economic life is shorter than the
asset life for some technologies such as coal, nuclear and hydro. Some stakeholders have queried
why this is so.
> Debt and equity providers require a shorter payback period than the total asset life for some
technologies to avoid the risk that part of the equipment might fail or might need new investment
(sometimes called refurbishment or extension costs) to keep operating safely and reliably. To
determine the economic life, debt and equity providers might look to the warranties provided
with the equipment. They might also look at the typical timing of refurbishments or life extensions
for that technology. The economic life is an input provided by the engineering firm that AEMO
commissions each year as an input to GenCost.
> Some stakeholders suggested that coal and nuclear could access special financing arrangements to
move the economic life closer to the asset life. However, our preference is not to introduce special
arrangements for technologies where there is limited Australian evidence. A common approach to
the LCOE calculation is important to maintain comparability. The 2024-25 report does explore the impact of longer capital recovery periods in Section 2. It finds there is no significant benefit from
the longer operational life of nuclear relative to shorter-lived technologies whose costs have been
falling over time.
Even looking at China and South Korea they see essentially zero learning effects across plants after the FOAK build. Small ones at the same plant.
Crying about FOAK vs NOAK is not even close to solving the absolutely stupidly large subsidies new built nuclear power needs.
Again with the loaded terms. Sad. The market is limited until for example Jevons paradox expands it. Which will never happen with new built nuclear power due to how expensive the electricity is, that leads to energy poverty for generations instead. But I digress.
Look at Texas or California. About all new renewable projects in those markets are coupled with storage.
What you call cannabilisation, and try to paint like the end of the world, is simply the market working. Now pure renewable projects aren’t enough, instead you need to sell the electricity when the consumers demand it.
In just a year or two storage has massively smoothed out the price swings in Texas.
But again, that would require curiosity rather than desperately trying to poke holes the study already answered.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?