5 ms·

> it's just too complex and expensive This seems like a verbose rehash of an older comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25058145 https://news.ycombina

> it's just too complex and expensive This seems like a verbose rehash of an older comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25058145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25058145) that has already been refuted. You’re not accounting for the real life costs like paying consumers to take excess energy when demand is lower than fluctuating supply, or replacing renewable infrastructure as often as every other decade (nuclear reactors may be able to last centuries, and their “waste” is recyclable).

pfdietz 6y ago
Renewable sources can be easily curtailed, so in a high renewable grid prices cannot often go negative, unless someone is paying extra for the renewable sources to produce (which production tax credits do today in the US.)
- boogies 6y ago
  Good point, though my larger point that they’re more expensive per watt still stands.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Renewable sources are much cheaper per watt than new nuclear. By like an order of magnitude, for PV. They are also cheaper per kWh (levelized cost). Nuclear's sole remaining argument is that the cost of intermittency of renewables is too high. But if that argument has any remaining validity, it requires that the rapidly decline of the cost of renewables and storage soon and suddenly runs into a brick wall.
    - boogies 6y ago
      > They are also cheaper per kWh (levelized cost). That seems to contradict the thread I linked to above. > the rapidly [sic] decline of the cost of renewables and storage soon and suddenly runs into a brick wall That doesn’t seem too unlikely given how tiny the combined storage capacity of all the batteries ever made, and all that could be made with all the raw lithium that can mined on Earth, would be compared to modern energy needs.
      - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        That might be true if lithium battery storage was the only option. It isn't. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886...
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        > That seems to contradict the thread I linked to above. That thread was wrong, then. The cost of PV, utility scale, is about $1/W(dc). Nuclear is an order of magnitude more expensive, per watt. PV has lower capacity factor, but it's still cheaper per kWh. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
        boogies 6y ago
        > Nuclear is an order of magnitude more expensive, per watt. Where are you getting that?
        pfdietz 6y ago
        Vogtle 3/4 cost about $10/W. Utility scale PV costs roughly $1/W(dc).
    - lmm 6y ago
      I don't think we can blindly assume that the extraordinary improvements to energy storage of the last few decades will continue forever; things like the Samsung exploding battery issues suggest we're already pushing the limits. CPU single-core performance was always increasing rapidly until it wasn't.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        And I don't think we can safely assume the decline won't continue. And you need to make that assumption if you're going to invest in nuclear, otherwise you've pissed away many billions of dollars. Renewables and storage right now could handle the grid. So the downside, if we go with them and the decline suddenly stops, is that costs are higher than we wanted them to be. But that's it -- they can still do the job. If the economic risk for nuclear is higher than that, it's still worth going with renewables. At best, it might make sense to do some token nuclear projects to keep the industry from dying completely. You can view SMR efforts, or even Chinese reactor building, in that light. I think, though, that renewables and storage will continue to get cheaper. For storage, in particular, I think the trends are very clear. There are many different storage technologies vying in the marketplace -- for example, hundreds or thousands of battery chemistries, or more with organics -- and increasing economic incentive to make them work and install them. Zero or even negative grid pricing is becoming common in more and more places. Trillions of dollars are available to those who win at this.
        lmm 6y ago
        It's not pissing away, it's insurance. Maybe cheap storage will work out. But I'm not quite ready to bet all our futures on that assumption.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        The insurance argument would support small efforts to sustain seed groups that could be expanded if the insurance policy has to be "cashed". It would not justify any large nuclear building program, or even justify replacing existing nuclear power plants as they age out.

pfdietz 6y ago

Renewable sources can be easily curtailed, so in a high renewable grid prices cannot often go negative, unless someone is paying extra for the renewable sources to produce (which production tax credits do today in the US.)

boogies 6y ago
Good point, though my larger point that they’re more expensive per watt still stands.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Renewable sources are much cheaper per watt than new nuclear. By like an order of magnitude, for PV. They are also cheaper per kWh (levelized cost). Nuclear's sole remaining argument is that the cost of intermittency of renewables is too high. But if that argument has any remaining validity, it requires that the rapidly decline of the cost of renewables and storage soon and suddenly runs into a brick wall.
  - boogies 6y ago
    > They are also cheaper per kWh (levelized cost). That seems to contradict the thread I linked to above. > the rapidly [sic] decline of the cost of renewables and storage soon and suddenly runs into a brick wall That doesn’t seem too unlikely given how tiny the combined storage capacity of all the batteries ever made, and all that could be made with all the raw lithium that can mined on Earth, would be compared to modern energy needs.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      That might be true if lithium battery storage was the only option. It isn't. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886...
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      > That seems to contradict the thread I linked to above. That thread was wrong, then. The cost of PV, utility scale, is about $1/W(dc). Nuclear is an order of magnitude more expensive, per watt. PV has lower capacity factor, but it's still cheaper per kWh. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
      - boogies 6y ago
        > Nuclear is an order of magnitude more expensive, per watt. Where are you getting that?
        pfdietz 6y ago
        Vogtle 3/4 cost about $10/W. Utility scale PV costs roughly $1/W(dc).
  - lmm 6y ago
    I don't think we can blindly assume that the extraordinary improvements to energy storage of the last few decades will continue forever; things like the Samsung exploding battery issues suggest we're already pushing the limits. CPU single-core performance was always increasing rapidly until it wasn't.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      And I don't think we can safely assume the decline won't continue. And you need to make that assumption if you're going to invest in nuclear, otherwise you've pissed away many billions of dollars. Renewables and storage right now could handle the grid. So the downside, if we go with them and the decline suddenly stops, is that costs are higher than we wanted them to be. But that's it -- they can still do the job. If the economic risk for nuclear is higher than that, it's still worth going with renewables. At best, it might make sense to do some token nuclear projects to keep the industry from dying completely. You can view SMR efforts, or even Chinese reactor building, in that light. I think, though, that renewables and storage will continue to get cheaper. For storage, in particular, I think the trends are very clear. There are many different storage technologies vying in the marketplace -- for example, hundreds or thousands of battery chemistries, or more with organics -- and increasing economic incentive to make them work and install them. Zero or even negative grid pricing is becoming common in more and more places. Trillions of dollars are available to those who win at this.
      - lmm 6y ago
        It's not pissing away, it's insurance. Maybe cheap storage will work out. But I'm not quite ready to bet all our futures on that assumption.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        The insurance argument would support small efforts to sustain seed groups that could be expanded if the insurance policy has to be "cashed". It would not justify any large nuclear building program, or even justify replacing existing nuclear power plants as they age out.