9 ms·

This article is an interesting thought exercise and it makes some good points about how expensive Germany’s renewable build out has been. However, these are al

This article is an interesting thought exercise and it makes some good points about how expensive Germany’s renewable build out has been. However, these are all sunk costs and don’t matter going forward. What matters is the cost today. Also, the total terawatt hours isn’t nearly as important as keeping the lights on. Nukes are great and renewables are great, but this isn’t a contest to see which generates the most electricity over the course of a year, but rather we need to keeps the lights on by using the sources that make the best sense to do that at lower cost or lower co2 emissions.

leetcrew 7y ago
> However, these are all sunk costs and don’t matter going forward. What matters is the cost today. one of the major points from the article is that Germany's renewable build out is not a one time capital cost. according to the article, the German power infrastructure is more expensive and has half the expected lifetime compared to France. unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear, there's no way it ends up being cheaper in the long run for Germany. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether the figures quoted in the article are actually correct/complete, but if you accept them, it seems France is getting a lot more bang for its buck.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The short lifespan of renewables is deliberate and correct. When technology is changing rapidly, optimizing for long lifespan is stupid. The long life of a nuclear reactor is an illusion now, since solar and wind are improving so fast that they would not operate their full 40+ years.
  - lispm 7y ago
    France sits on a lot of nuclear power plants with very old standards. But upgrading them is technically and/or economically impossible.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Once a new plant is already constructed, shutting it down early would only make sense if the average generation price fell below the operating cost, excluding the construction and decommissioning costs which by that point are already historical costs. Solar panels could be free and not be able to match that price, because they still require land and energy storage and labor to install and maintain, so the nuclear plant would still operate the full 40+ years and have that long to amortize the construction.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      At least in the US, land is an negligible part of the cost of PV in most of the country. And here, many reactors have been having trouble meeting their operating costs, particularly if they encounter a major maintenance issue, or if they are smaller or not paired with other reactors to save on staffing. The remaining reactor at TMI was cash flow negative for six years before it was retired for being unprofitable. There is some reluctance on the part of utilities to shut down nuclear power plants because continuing to operate them allows decommissioning (and its costs) to be delayed.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > At least in the US, land is an negligible part of the cost of PV in most of the country. If you pick any one component of the overall cost it's small, but the panels themselves are already less than half the overall cost. Everything else adds up. And the everything else has stickier prices than the panels -- the price of the panels may get cut in half but the price per acre of land or the hourly wage for labor doesn't. > And here, many reactors have been having trouble meeting their operating costs, particularly if they encounter a major maintenance issue, or if they are smaller or not paired with other reactors to save on staffing. The remaining reactor at TMI was cash flow negative for six years before it was retired for being unprofitable. TMI is hardly the typical case. It's the one site to have screwed the pooch and lost a reactor. That harms their reputation and makes it cost more to buy insurance and borrow money, and doesn't lend itself to receiving any sympathy or leniency from the public or regulators etc. Their operating cost correspondingly exceeded the average. And it's true that operating multiple reactors on the same site significantly reduces operating costs, but that just argues in favor of opening new plants with multiple reactors on the same site. > There is some reluctance on the part of utilities to shut down nuclear power plants because continuing to operate them allows decommissioning (and its costs) to be delayed. Feature not bug. The net present cost of decommissioning goes down by a lot when you can push it out 40 years and collect interest on the money in the meantime.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear... Is there any chance that won't be the case? Has the cost of nuclear ever not wildly increased, let alone decreased?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The recent high construction costs for nuclear have a lot to do with lack of scale. If you only build one or two reactors over a decade you have to amortize all the first-time construction mistakes over that small number. If you build a hundred, you may make mistakes that require expensive reworks on the first one or two but not on the third or fourth and certainly not on the fiftieth. The other major contributor is regulatory inefficiency. That's fixable at the stroke of a pen given the political will to do something about it. Meanwhile people look at the exponential curve for renewables as if it's going to last forever, but they never do in the end. The question is how far from the end we are, but nobody has a crystal ball. Which is why we should hedge our bets. Build both. If people figure out how to make it work with only wind and solar then we paid some money for insurance. If they don't, we're still prepared. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      We've heard about these small-scale reactors for decades. Various militaries have used them for decades. We have lots of eccentric multibillionaires now, many of whom require reliable power in remote locations. Why are there no small-scale reactors offered for sale for civilian use?
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Gates is behind TerraPower which is supposed to have something like that Real Soon Now, but they got a bit delayed because they originally had a partnership with China which fell victim to the trade war, so now they're regrouping. But the answer in general is much the same as it is for larger reactors -- you need a sympathetic host country whose regulators aren't captured by fossil fuel industry lobbyists trying to destroy you. It's a political problem, not a technical one.
- petre 7y ago
  Half the expected lifetime at a fraction of the capacity factor.

leetcrew 7y ago

> However, these are all sunk costs and don’t matter going forward. What matters is the cost today. one of the major points from the article is that Germany's renewable build out is not a one time capital cost. according to the article, the German power infrastructure is more expensive and has half the expected lifetime compared to France. unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear, there's no way it ends up being cheaper in the long run for Germany. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether the figures quoted in the article are actually correct/complete, but if you accept them, it seems France is getting a lot more bang for its buck.

pfdietz 7y ago
The short lifespan of renewables is deliberate and correct. When technology is changing rapidly, optimizing for long lifespan is stupid. The long life of a nuclear reactor is an illusion now, since solar and wind are improving so fast that they would not operate their full 40+ years.
- lispm 7y ago
  France sits on a lot of nuclear power plants with very old standards. But upgrading them is technically and/or economically impossible.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Once a new plant is already constructed, shutting it down early would only make sense if the average generation price fell below the operating cost, excluding the construction and decommissioning costs which by that point are already historical costs. Solar panels could be free and not be able to match that price, because they still require land and energy storage and labor to install and maintain, so the nuclear plant would still operate the full 40+ years and have that long to amortize the construction.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    At least in the US, land is an negligible part of the cost of PV in most of the country. And here, many reactors have been having trouble meeting their operating costs, particularly if they encounter a major maintenance issue, or if they are smaller or not paired with other reactors to save on staffing. The remaining reactor at TMI was cash flow negative for six years before it was retired for being unprofitable. There is some reluctance on the part of utilities to shut down nuclear power plants because continuing to operate them allows decommissioning (and its costs) to be delayed.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > At least in the US, land is an negligible part of the cost of PV in most of the country. If you pick any one component of the overall cost it's small, but the panels themselves are already less than half the overall cost. Everything else adds up. And the everything else has stickier prices than the panels -- the price of the panels may get cut in half but the price per acre of land or the hourly wage for labor doesn't. > And here, many reactors have been having trouble meeting their operating costs, particularly if they encounter a major maintenance issue, or if they are smaller or not paired with other reactors to save on staffing. The remaining reactor at TMI was cash flow negative for six years before it was retired for being unprofitable. TMI is hardly the typical case. It's the one site to have screwed the pooch and lost a reactor. That harms their reputation and makes it cost more to buy insurance and borrow money, and doesn't lend itself to receiving any sympathy or leniency from the public or regulators etc. Their operating cost correspondingly exceeded the average. And it's true that operating multiple reactors on the same site significantly reduces operating costs, but that just argues in favor of opening new plants with multiple reactors on the same site. > There is some reluctance on the part of utilities to shut down nuclear power plants because continuing to operate them allows decommissioning (and its costs) to be delayed. Feature not bug. The net present cost of decommissioning goes down by a lot when you can push it out 40 years and collect interest on the money in the meantime.
jessaustin 7y ago
unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear... Is there any chance that won't be the case? Has the cost of nuclear ever not wildly increased, let alone decreased?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The recent high construction costs for nuclear have a lot to do with lack of scale. If you only build one or two reactors over a decade you have to amortize all the first-time construction mistakes over that small number. If you build a hundred, you may make mistakes that require expensive reworks on the first one or two but not on the third or fourth and certainly not on the fiftieth. The other major contributor is regulatory inefficiency. That's fixable at the stroke of a pen given the political will to do something about it. Meanwhile people look at the exponential curve for renewables as if it's going to last forever, but they never do in the end. The question is how far from the end we are, but nobody has a crystal ball. Which is why we should hedge our bets. Build both. If people figure out how to make it work with only wind and solar then we paid some money for insurance. If they don't, we're still prepared. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    We've heard about these small-scale reactors for decades. Various militaries have used them for decades. We have lots of eccentric multibillionaires now, many of whom require reliable power in remote locations. Why are there no small-scale reactors offered for sale for civilian use?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Gates is behind TerraPower which is supposed to have something like that Real Soon Now, but they got a bit delayed because they originally had a partnership with China which fell victim to the trade war, so now they're regrouping. But the answer in general is much the same as it is for larger reactors -- you need a sympathetic host country whose regulators aren't captured by fossil fuel industry lobbyists trying to destroy you. It's a political problem, not a technical one.
petre 7y ago
Half the expected lifetime at a fraction of the capacity factor.