6 ms·

> Renewables are about an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear. I think there are a lot of complications that are encountered when doing this sort of calcul

> Renewables are about an order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear. I think there are a lot of complications that are encountered when doing this sort of calculation. You might get a max output of "$15/MWh" or "$112/MWh" but that's only a portion of the picture. Firstly Nuclear is X amount of power essentially on tap 24/7 where X is between some Min and Max value. From what I understand this makes grid management much simpler and reduces storage, transmission, and conversion losses. Even in the best case situation of "renewable" energy you'll see, in the absolute best case claimed by pumped hydro storage, you're seeing about an 87% efficiency. Suppose you had a nuclear power plant that could output 100W consistently. Suppose you wanted to build a similarly efficient "renewable" energy source. How much more peak power would it need to output to be competitive? If we assume the power source is 0% efficient at night and 100% efficient during the day, off the bat, you'd need to generate 200W continuously during the day. Then you'd need to generate an extra 13% on those extra 100Ws to make up for storage losses (1.13*100 ~= 113). That means 100W from Nuclear is ~= 213W "renewable". Obviously this is a terrible calculation and not at all accurate but it's just a sample of some of the math that needs to be done. Another factor that I've been skirting around is that "renewable" sources of energy are often not so renewable. Specifically things like like solar require a huge amount of rare metals & complex fabrication. Right now none of those externalizations are represented in the price of solar because there are no carbon taxes in countries that manufacture them. Money in this case is a proxy of what needs to be measured and should not be the only factor we optimize for.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Nuclear is really good at producing consistent power. Unfortunately, that's not what we want. Peak demand for power in the evening is several times what it is during the middle of the night.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Except that it is exactly what we want for the level of demand that we never fall below, which is still about half of the peak demand. And if we use nuclear for that, it significantly reduces the amount of storage we need for renewables. Also, nuclear combines well with thermal storage because you don't incur double conversion losses. If you store heat from the reactor during the day when solar is generating, use it during the peak demand in the evening when it isn't, and then run directly from the reactor overnight, you don't really need any other storage.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    > Except that it is exactly what we want for the level of demand that we never fall below, which is still about half of the peak demand. And if we use nuclear for that, it significantly reduces the amount of storage we need for renewables. The bottom half of the demand is the easy half, why would you use your most expensive power for the easy stuff? > Also, nuclear combines well with thermal storage because you don't incur double conversion losses. If you store heat from the reactor during the day when solar is generating, use it during the peak demand in the evening when it isn't, and then run directly from the reactor overnight, you don't really need any other storage. In other words, you're running your nuclear at a 50% duty cycle, doubling it's price. I don't think there is much appetite for power that costs over $200 per MWh.
    - gravypod 6y ago
      I think this is, again, too simplistic a model for understanding the costs of different power systems. Industrial use cases (think data centers, factories, etc) likely reduce usage during night time hours but they surely don't drop by 50% usage. > The bottom half of the demand is the easy half, why would you use your most expensive power for the easy stuff? Factoring in carbon footprints nuclear would likely beat our battery based storage options if carbon output was taxed. Nickel–metal hydride battery and LiPo are not carbon neutral and are consumable components. > In other words, you're running your nuclear at a 50% duty cycle, doubling it's price. I don't think there is much appetite for power that costs over $200 per MWh. 50% duty cycle means 50% fuel usage (not really but not not) meaning you're not really "wasting" energy here. Another question to ask ourselves: we make the Total Cost of Ownership of a plant far better than it even currently is? We can do this by extending the lifespan of a plant to amortize construction. If you could design a power plant to last 100 to 200 years, that could be amortized further factoring into lower costs. We can also do this by reducing construction costs or improving efficiency. I think those are accomplish-able goals (at least judging by China's adoption of Nuclear). Current plants in the USA operate for ~40 years. That means current plants were built with ~$today-50 (or more) years of physics and material science knowledge. For context, that's the 70s. In the 70s: - C was invented - TTL logic was just starting to be used - Stainless steel did not exist <- this statement was wrong Edit: philipkglass pointed out that stainless steel is quite a bit older. Disregard that last item.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  You're wrong, nuclear is very controllable. Look up control rods. It's not like it can only pump out one level of energy.
Krasnol 6y ago
> In a new report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says solar is now the cheapest form of electricity for utility companies to build. That’s thanks to risk-reducing financial policies around the world, the agency says, and it applies to locations with both the most favorable policies and the easiest access to financing. The report underlines how important these policies are to encouraging development of renewables and other environmentally forward technologies. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-che...
- craftinator 6y ago
  Don't forget the massive initial buying subsidies, the ones that only last as long as the government wants them to, the ones which don't cover any of the maintainance costs.
m0zg 6y ago
This point was driven home for me when I was at Google. Googlers being flush with money, we had a local solar installer stop by a few times. I attended one of the presentations. This was in WA, by the way, which turns into Mordor for 6 months in any given year. So the guy keeps going on about how it'll pay for itself and so on, and presenting all kinds of stats like the ones you responded to. Then someone asked him how much our typical lack of sunlight affects this thing. He was like, "not much, let me show you", and he brought up a management UI for a solar installation in some school that they've recently completed. That was a mistake on his part. It was mid day, although a cloudy day IIRC, and the page showed like 10% of the possible output was being produced. Audience chuckled and some people started heading for the exit.
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
Most solar doesn't require rare metals. CIGs does, but that's not very common. I can see complex fabrication, but pretty much everything requires that. Besides cost, the other issue with nuclear, or any large single generator, is that they can go down unexpectedly and their output drops from whatever to 0. This is less common when generation is from many individual generators. If a wine turbine goes out, it only drops the output of the wind farm by some small fraction.
- nickles 6y ago
  > Most solar doesn't require rare metals. However, it does require lead, cadmium, and other dangerous materials. Solar power can produce up to 300x the toxic waste as nuclear power does. [0] https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/ https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste...
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    It generally does not. A quick search shows that the company referenced in that article, Solyndra, made CIGS panels, which, like I said, are relatively rare, in large part because they were a failed startup that went out of business. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra The vast majority of panels use crystalline Silicon. The article also conflates warrantied lifespan with average lifespan. Solar PV cells can last much longer than 20 years. https://www.presse.uni-oldenburg.de/einblicke/54/files/assets/downloads/page0009.pdf https://www.presse.uni-oldenburg.de/einblicke/54/files/asset...
jnxx 6y ago
> From what I understand this makes grid management much simpler and reduces storage, transmission, and conversion losses. That's not so simple. Demand for energy is fluctuating hugely, and nuclear power cannot be freely switched on and off. This is also the case for large coal plants. So, with using renewable energy, grids need to become more agile, and a somewhat larger amount of freely controllable power sources is needed. Another strategy is to average out fluctuations over large areas.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  What is France?

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Nuclear is really good at producing consistent power. Unfortunately, that's not what we want. Peak demand for power in the evening is several times what it is during the middle of the night.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Except that it is exactly what we want for the level of demand that we never fall below, which is still about half of the peak demand. And if we use nuclear for that, it significantly reduces the amount of storage we need for renewables. Also, nuclear combines well with thermal storage because you don't incur double conversion losses. If you store heat from the reactor during the day when solar is generating, use it during the peak demand in the evening when it isn't, and then run directly from the reactor overnight, you don't really need any other storage.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  > Except that it is exactly what we want for the level of demand that we never fall below, which is still about half of the peak demand. And if we use nuclear for that, it significantly reduces the amount of storage we need for renewables. The bottom half of the demand is the easy half, why would you use your most expensive power for the easy stuff? > Also, nuclear combines well with thermal storage because you don't incur double conversion losses. If you store heat from the reactor during the day when solar is generating, use it during the peak demand in the evening when it isn't, and then run directly from the reactor overnight, you don't really need any other storage. In other words, you're running your nuclear at a 50% duty cycle, doubling it's price. I don't think there is much appetite for power that costs over $200 per MWh.
  - gravypod 6y ago
    I think this is, again, too simplistic a model for understanding the costs of different power systems. Industrial use cases (think data centers, factories, etc) likely reduce usage during night time hours but they surely don't drop by 50% usage. > The bottom half of the demand is the easy half, why would you use your most expensive power for the easy stuff? Factoring in carbon footprints nuclear would likely beat our battery based storage options if carbon output was taxed. Nickel–metal hydride battery and LiPo are not carbon neutral and are consumable components. > In other words, you're running your nuclear at a 50% duty cycle, doubling it's price. I don't think there is much appetite for power that costs over $200 per MWh. 50% duty cycle means 50% fuel usage (not really but not not) meaning you're not really "wasting" energy here. Another question to ask ourselves: we make the Total Cost of Ownership of a plant far better than it even currently is? We can do this by extending the lifespan of a plant to amortize construction. If you could design a power plant to last 100 to 200 years, that could be amortized further factoring into lower costs. We can also do this by reducing construction costs or improving efficiency. I think those are accomplish-able goals (at least judging by China's adoption of Nuclear). Current plants in the USA operate for ~40 years. That means current plants were built with ~$today-50 (or more) years of physics and material science knowledge. For context, that's the 70s. In the 70s: - C was invented - TTL logic was just starting to be used - Stainless steel did not exist <- this statement was wrong Edit: philipkglass pointed out that stainless steel is quite a bit older. Disregard that last item.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
You're wrong, nuclear is very controllable. Look up control rods. It's not like it can only pump out one level of energy.

Krasnol 6y ago

> In a new report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says solar is now the cheapest form of electricity for utility companies to build. That’s thanks to risk-reducing financial policies around the world, the agency says, and it applies to locations with both the most favorable policies and the easiest access to financing. The report underlines how important these policies are to encouraging development of renewables and other environmentally forward technologies. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-che...

craftinator 6y ago
Don't forget the massive initial buying subsidies, the ones that only last as long as the government wants them to, the ones which don't cover any of the maintainance costs.

m0zg 6y ago

This point was driven home for me when I was at Google. Googlers being flush with money, we had a local solar installer stop by a few times. I attended one of the presentations. This was in WA, by the way, which turns into Mordor for 6 months in any given year. So the guy keeps going on about how it'll pay for itself and so on, and presenting all kinds of stats like the ones you responded to. Then someone asked him how much our typical lack of sunlight affects this thing. He was like, "not much, let me show you", and he brought up a management UI for a solar installation in some school that they've recently completed. That was a mistake on his part. It was mid day, although a cloudy day IIRC, and the page showed like 10% of the possible output was being produced. Audience chuckled and some people started heading for the exit.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

Most solar doesn't require rare metals. CIGs does, but that's not very common. I can see complex fabrication, but pretty much everything requires that. Besides cost, the other issue with nuclear, or any large single generator, is that they can go down unexpectedly and their output drops from whatever to 0. This is less common when generation is from many individual generators. If a wine turbine goes out, it only drops the output of the wind farm by some small fraction.

nickles 6y ago
> Most solar doesn't require rare metals. However, it does require lead, cadmium, and other dangerous materials. Solar power can produce up to 300x the toxic waste as nuclear power does. [0] https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/ https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste...
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  It generally does not. A quick search shows that the company referenced in that article, Solyndra, made CIGS panels, which, like I said, are relatively rare, in large part because they were a failed startup that went out of business. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra The vast majority of panels use crystalline Silicon. The article also conflates warrantied lifespan with average lifespan. Solar PV cells can last much longer than 20 years. https://www.presse.uni-oldenburg.de/einblicke/54/files/assets/downloads/page0009.pdf https://www.presse.uni-oldenburg.de/einblicke/54/files/asset...

jnxx 6y ago

> From what I understand this makes grid management much simpler and reduces storage, transmission, and conversion losses. That's not so simple. Demand for energy is fluctuating hugely, and nuclear power cannot be freely switched on and off. This is also the case for large coal plants. So, with using renewable energy, grids need to become more agile, and a somewhat larger amount of freely controllable power sources is needed. Another strategy is to average out fluctuations over large areas.

andromeduck 6y ago
What is France?