5 ms·

500MW peak delivery is not _that_ small. But it still puts the cost at planned 2 $/W, whereas solar apparently ranges between 0.82 and 1.2 $/W. It will require

by lrem 5y ago

500MW peak delivery is not _that_ small. But it still puts the cost at planned 2 $/W, whereas solar apparently ranges between 0.82 and 1.2 $/W. It will require quite some political willpower to get this through.

bushbaba 5y ago
How much is solar energy storage for winter months and rainy/cloudy summers though.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  That’s something that proponents of solar and wind power always happen to “forget” when they make these comparisons. Solar has a capacity factor of around 10% in Europe (don’t know for the US), so it effectively only generates 10% of its maximum generation output every year.
Darmody 5y ago
But solar is not able to produce more energy on a demand spike. And batteries are expensive, so if you store it the price goes up. Nuclear is not an alternative but a reinforcement.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? Hence why stored-energy plants a still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
  - Darmody 5y ago
    But you don't necessarily need an instant response, at least not always. Some months ago we had very bad weather with almost no wind during days and we had to buy energy from France. It wasn't cheap at all but we had to do it because solar, wind and hydro couldn't supply enough. Nuclear from France did though.
  - cbmuser 5y ago
    > If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? No, nuclear plants can regulate within minutes and it’s done in Germany. Source in German: https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebetrieb-kki2.pdf https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebet... Fluctuations on the second scale are compensated by the large turbine wheels of the power generators of large plants such as nuclear and coal. Also, normal demand doesn’t change so fast anyways. The fluctuations comes from wind and solar plants.
  - bbojan 5y ago
    "Nuclear power" is a broad term, although it's mostly used to mean light water reactors. Some of the newer designs (eg. salt reactors) can actually respond to load changes pretty quickly, on the order of tens of seconds if my understanding is right.
- tfourb 5y ago
  I am currently building a 12.2 kWp solar plant and it costs about $2/W including battery storage. Not counting government subsidies, my plant will break even after 9 years of operation, while this nuclear reactor will likely not even been built yet. My site is less than ideal: mid-western Germany, 20% shaded. just image the bang-for-buck you get if you plop a slightly larger array into a place that actually has a lot of sun year round. Yes, solar produces way less reliable energy, but I'd note that the reactor in question also relies on some storage to provide its 500MW peak capacity. It's average peak capacity is rated at 345MW and it will go down for maintenance and refueling (I guess), which will reduce its average production further. Meanwhile solar is basically maintenance free for 20+ years. I get that this type of reactor is interesting as a research project. But given the build times, the bureaucratic hurdles and the quality, cost effectiveness and diversity of renewable alternatives, why bother?
  - cbmuser 5y ago
    > I get that this type of reactor is interesting as a research project. But given the build times, the bureaucratic hurdles and the quality, cost effectiveness and diversity of renewable alternatives, why bother? Why bother? Because volatile renewable energy is not efficient at redid greenhouse gas emissions. Compare France and Germany. Germany: 50% renewables, 300 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector France: 70% nuclear, 50 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector Go to electricitymap.org or ourworldindata.org if you want more detailed data.
    - lrem 5y ago
      The real problem here is that France has achieved this by steadfastly defending its nuclear for generations. Remember how Chernobyl's radioactive clouds stopped and turned around at the French border? Keeping the momentum is not that hard for the French government now. Germany has been anti-nuclear for that time. No wonder when at least a section of the society believed that the US is planning to plant a nuclear minefield in their country. That's how you end up with Greens that would prefer coal over nuclear. Which is the environment that prevents us from getting nuclear where we need it. In short term solar is way more promising on all accounts. Nuclear requires the project to survive a couple election cycles. Good luck with that.
cbmuser 5y ago
Solar has a capacity factor of just 10% while nuclear is above 90%. This means that a solar farm cannot replace a nuclear reactor. Solar needs a backup plant, nuclear doesn’t. So you’re comparing apples and oranges. Plus, this is an experimental reactor and naturally has a lower power output.

by lrem 5y ago

bushbaba 5y ago

How much is solar energy storage for winter months and rainy/cloudy summers though.

cbmuser 5y ago
That’s something that proponents of solar and wind power always happen to “forget” when they make these comparisons. Solar has a capacity factor of around 10% in Europe (don’t know for the US), so it effectively only generates 10% of its maximum generation output every year.

Darmody 5y ago

But solar is not able to produce more energy on a demand spike. And batteries are expensive, so if you store it the price goes up. Nuclear is not an alternative but a reinforcement.

DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? Hence why stored-energy plants a still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
- Darmody 5y ago
  But you don't necessarily need an instant response, at least not always. Some months ago we had very bad weather with almost no wind during days and we had to buy energy from France. It wasn't cheap at all but we had to do it because solar, wind and hydro couldn't supply enough. Nuclear from France did though.
- cbmuser 5y ago
  > If I understand it correctly, nuclear power has inherent latency issues that mean it can't respond to demand-spikes within seconds or minutes, but needs about an hour or so? No, nuclear plants can regulate within minutes and it’s done in Germany. Source in German: https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebetrieb-kki2.pdf https://www.ktg.org/ktg-wAssets/docs/fg-bet-rph-lastfolgebet... Fluctuations on the second scale are compensated by the large turbine wheels of the power generators of large plants such as nuclear and coal. Also, normal demand doesn’t change so fast anyways. The fluctuations comes from wind and solar plants.
- bbojan 5y ago
  "Nuclear power" is a broad term, although it's mostly used to mean light water reactors. Some of the newer designs (eg. salt reactors) can actually respond to load changes pretty quickly, on the order of tens of seconds if my understanding is right.
tfourb 5y ago
I am currently building a 12.2 kWp solar plant and it costs about $2/W including battery storage. Not counting government subsidies, my plant will break even after 9 years of operation, while this nuclear reactor will likely not even been built yet. My site is less than ideal: mid-western Germany, 20% shaded. just image the bang-for-buck you get if you plop a slightly larger array into a place that actually has a lot of sun year round. Yes, solar produces way less reliable energy, but I'd note that the reactor in question also relies on some storage to provide its 500MW peak capacity. It's average peak capacity is rated at 345MW and it will go down for maintenance and refueling (I guess), which will reduce its average production further. Meanwhile solar is basically maintenance free for 20+ years. I get that this type of reactor is interesting as a research project. But given the build times, the bureaucratic hurdles and the quality, cost effectiveness and diversity of renewable alternatives, why bother?
- cbmuser 5y ago
  > I get that this type of reactor is interesting as a research project. But given the build times, the bureaucratic hurdles and the quality, cost effectiveness and diversity of renewable alternatives, why bother? Why bother? Because volatile renewable energy is not efficient at redid greenhouse gas emissions. Compare France and Germany. Germany: 50% renewables, 300 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector France: 70% nuclear, 50 million tons of CO2 per year in the energy sector Go to electricitymap.org or ourworldindata.org if you want more detailed data.
  - lrem 5y ago
    The real problem here is that France has achieved this by steadfastly defending its nuclear for generations. Remember how Chernobyl's radioactive clouds stopped and turned around at the French border? Keeping the momentum is not that hard for the French government now. Germany has been anti-nuclear for that time. No wonder when at least a section of the society believed that the US is planning to plant a nuclear minefield in their country. That's how you end up with Greens that would prefer coal over nuclear. Which is the environment that prevents us from getting nuclear where we need it. In short term solar is way more promising on all accounts. Nuclear requires the project to survive a couple election cycles. Good luck with that.

cbmuser 5y ago

Solar has a capacity factor of just 10% while nuclear is above 90%. This means that a solar farm cannot replace a nuclear reactor. Solar needs a backup plant, nuclear doesn’t. So you’re comparing apples and oranges. Plus, this is an experimental reactor and naturally has a lower power output.