Talk:Overnight cost

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Example Cost Used

Talk:Overnight cost The example provided is misleading. As is evident in the following recent articles and links, overnight costs of new nuclear power are much higher than the example suggests. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] I suggest that the example either use placeholder numbers or more recent numbers, as reflected in recent Moody's Investor Services' reports. I.E., "The overnight cost of a nuclear plant might be $X000/kW, so a 1000MW plant would have an overnight cost $X billion." Using Moody's Investor Services' estimate of $7,000 per kilowatt (June 2008, [[5]]): "The overnight cost of a nuclear plant might be $7000/kW, so a 2200MW plant would have an overnight cost of $15.4 billion." This would make the article more objective.--JohnBonitz (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)JohnBonitz[reply]

Using the more recent numbers makes sense, but I believe that 1700 MWe is the current maximum size for a western plant (as I recall, the EPR comes in at 1700, and the AP1000 has been upgraded to 1600), and since so many plants are planned as single-unit additions it's probably better to quote for a single unit. (I am surprised at the cost increase, as the number used in the example was heavily-advertised not too long ago.) Simesa (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from Overnight capital cost (power generation)

@Xavdr, I've merged Overnight capital cost (power generation) back into this article because the subjects have significant overlap and it would serve readers better to be able to read about them in the same place. Indeed, I visited "Overnight cost" in the context of a power plant and was surprised that I had to navigate to a whole other article to get the full information. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]