Phobos15

Phobos15 t1_j6k7gk0 wrote

I am. The claim that this has a 30 year break even with lithium batteries means it loses money and is a terrible investment. Break even is not a profit. You profit based on how much longer it lasts after 30 years. You also assume efficiency doesn't degrade more than they predict too.

The chance that current technology does not improve over the next 10 years is zero. Your 30 year project likely won't make any sense to even turn on in a few years. You'll never get close to that 30 year time frame because more efficient options will exist over time or these things will drop in cost and the old ones won't get anywhere near the return that they need.

1

Phobos15 t1_j6iya5s wrote

That time frame makes no sense. This demonstrates that the technology is not close to commercialization.

If people won't invest in the sure returns of nuclear, why would they invest in a new unproven technology with less of a chance of a return than nuclear?

The feds even give out loan guarantees for nuclear projects, which you won't get for this new tech.

1

Phobos15 t1_j6f9j1m wrote

"when spread over 30 years" means it is more expensive. A 30 year break even to today's prices doesn't make much sense in a rapidly improving field.

The biggest reason nuclear isn't happening as much as it should is the very long pay back period. Investors do not want to wait 30 years to start making a profit.

11