7 ms·
This assumes that larger investment in nuclear won’t yield reduced costs, just as larger investments in solar did.
by flaque 6y ago
This assumes that larger investment in nuclear won’t yield reduced costs, just as larger investments in solar did.
- afterburner 6y agoIt seems like the largest feature of modern nuclear power is that it got a lot more expensive as we realized how much safety we truly needed to build into it. Whereas, without much prompting, solar got a LOT cheaper. When nuclear develops that significantly, we will all pay attention. Until then, build cheaper sources. Also consider when building nuclear, you are locking into technology from 10 years ago (when the plant is finally done), for the next 50 years (when the plant is finally decommissioned). Solar and other sources have much faster iteration cycles and much lower commitment.
- hntrader 6y agoIsn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?
- afterburner 6y ago> Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case? What the hell are you talking about.
- hntrader 6y agoSolar doesn't provide off peak power without storage. So comparing nuclear directly to solar in the way you've done makes no sense.
- afterburner 6y agoI believe solar and wind can provide for ALL power. Same as nuclear. That is the basis for my comparison.
- hntrader 6y agoStill doesn't make sense. Even if what you say is true, then the valid comparison is to compare nuclear to wind rather than nuclear to solar.
- afterburner 6y agoAgain, what the hell are you talking about. These are bad faith arguments. Moving goalposts, redefining everything. What a joke.
- hntrader 6y agoI'll put aside your rudeness (I assume you think this is a status contest, or maybe you've just misunderstood my intentions) and try to explain again. Solar being cheaper than nuclear makes it a foregone conclusion for daytime electricity supply. However the direct comparison you were making in the first paragraph of your original post between nuclear price and solar price is nonsensical because they're not in direct competition with each other. Nuclear satisfies a slightly different use case to solar. Nuclear instead is in direct competition with sources that are capable of providing base load power such as gas and solar+storage. The only meaningful price comparison is between nuclear and these other sources, since we need to decide if the stack is going to be solar+storage, solar+nuclear, etc. Comparing solar prices directly to nuclear prices without considering the whole stack is just a meaningless comparison.
- afterburner 6y agoLet me get this straight. You think every time I mention solar, I mean solar without storage? Lol have fun arguing with yourself.
- cygx 6y agoNuclear reactors don't make sense as peaker plants, hence are not a battery replacement as such. You're correct that one should factor in the cost of storage if one wants to considers renewables as an alternative to nuclear for providing base load power.
- hntrader 6y agoThanks. Any ideas how storage impacts the total cost of using only solar+wind?
- rhodozelia 6y agoGranted, I’ve never worked on a natural gas fired turbine, but I imagine every generator given the option would prefer to run consistentently at maximum output as that is how they would get the maximum ROI. Hydro plants can adjust output but it changes river levels and flows with environmental consequences. I imagine nuclear plants could use control rods to generate less power if they had to? Or if you have the nuclear power because you need it anyway in case it isn’t sunny/windy but it is a sunny and windy day how do you decide if solar/wind or nuclear should be curtailed? Both have near zero marginal cost.
- merb 6y ago> 50 years most often it is way longer
- orwin 6y agoIt would, but not as much as solar did. But people don't include recycling cost in PV, as well as electrical grid maintenance, impossibility to work as a baseline, no pilotability. Solar is good if the population is mature enough to accept the cost of sending PV to a recycling plant. And as long as it doesnt go past 50% of the energy production (you NEED a baseline of 30 to 40% at the very least)
- afterburner 6y ago> impossibility to work as a baseline Not true. Just overbuild it, and make sure your grid is large enough to transfer power between areas or just store it. Still cheaper than nuclear.
- orwin 6y agohttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918312790 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
- bryanlarsen 6y agoBase load power is unnecessary. The only type of power that's required is dispatchable power. If you have enough dispatchable power to meet peak demands you don't need anything else. For example, the northern towns served by a diesel generator. Other types of power are optional, but should be thrown into the mix for cost, reliability or environmental reasons.
- vlovich123 6y agoMy (perhaps erroneous) understanding nuclear is the only power source that can generate the power/heat that many very heavy industrial use cases need can’t be supplanted with renewables, no matter how inexpensive/efficient they are. That’s why countries like France have significantly lower coal usage whereas Germany has higher, even though both have similar levels of renewables.
- 6y ago
- simplicio 6y agoWe already tried that, didn't we? Several national gov'ts, subsidized the building of hundreds of reactors, trained gillions of nuclear scientists and engineers, etc. And indeed, nuclear power still is a bigger fraction of US electrical generation then renewables. Obviously, a new effort might yield a break-through the old one didn't. But it seems likely all the "low-hanging" fruit in lowering reactor costs have already been picked.
- zaik 6y agoGiven that nuclear has existed for quite some time now and hundreds of very costly plants have already been built, how much more cost-effectiveness can we expect? It feels like the current state is exactly what "larger investments" in nuclear get you.
- simplicio 6y agoObviously what we need is some sort of "Manhattan Project" for nuclear energy! :)
- pfdietz 6y agoThat was a very good one. :)
- sir_bearington 6y agoNuclear was considerably cheaper when it was built at scale. Both the US during the 70s and France both built plants at a cost of 1-2 billion per GW. Which, in the context of 24/7 carbon-free energy is fantastic.
- kragen 6y agoIt was fantastic for the 1970s, but it's not low enough to be competitive with current PV pricing, even with storage.
- sir_bearington 6y agoThere isn't remotely enough storage available to make renewables at all feasible for decarbonization. To put this in perspective 8 Gigawatt hours is just under one minute of storage for the United States' alone. This is why pointing to the the raw generation costs of intermittent sources is misleading. Generating another 500 MW of solar energy doesn't actually represent any decarbonization if that energy is produced when demand is already saturated.
- 6y ago
- lukeschlather 6y agoAccording to the IEA we are spending more on nuclear power research than any other category. (More than wind and solar combined.) More money won't magically give us better nuclear technology. If renewables keep getting better we're going to have to start some serious conversations about cutting nuclear funding in a few years, we're investing too much money with basically zero return on investment. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-rdd-budgets-2020 https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-rdd-budgets-20...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- balfirevic 6y ago> According to the IEA we are spending more on nuclear power research than any other category. Does that include fusion research?
- vkou 6y agoHow much of this R&D goes into nuclear power research, and how much of it is nuclear weapons research that is billed as power research? For example, the laser fusion research that hit 'break even' a few days ago was a byproduct of work on nuclear weapons.
- Zigurd 6y agoThere is a track record for nuclear and the line does not go in the good direction. Even France, which is often cited as a nuclear success, has underfunded decommissioning costs by a factor of 3 or 4. Building nuclear results in gouging ratepayers.