4 ms·

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 af

by 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.
- tfourb 5y ago
  I get your point. But with regards to climate change, the goal has to be to reduce CO2 emissions substantially within the next ten years. Even if the entire German population would become great advocates for nuclear energy overnight (which it won't), there is simply no way that a massive expansion of nuclear energy production would be possible within the next decade. Median construction times for nuclear reactors is around 8 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... Not sure if this includes planning times (probably not entirely) and I doubt that the reactor would deliver maximum power immediately. Smaller scale renewable projects can be (and are) realized in a fraction of the time. They are proven technologies that continue to become cheaper. And of course there are gigantic potentials in terms of simply using less energy. The German (or any) government could simply mandate that all existing building stock would have to reduce their energy consumption by X% over the next ten years. The technologies for that exist, are used every day and the only limit on their deployment is the required capital, to which governments have pretty much unlimited access.
rswskg 5y ago
Why bother? A europe wide 'cold, calm, grey' would mean no power generated. I feel the german prejudice of nuclear power is fueling your view point, a very detrimental view I might add when as a nation this is continuing the burning lignite coal. Continuing this over closing german nuclear power stations should be counted as an environmental catastrophe but is bizarrely given a pass.
- tfourb 5y ago
  Yeah, but how often is the entirety of Europe "cold, calm, grey"? Europe's power markets are pretty integrated. Just recently a new power line was inaugurated that gives Norwegian hydropower better access to continental Europe. Combine this with batteries, other storage technologies, offshore wind, natural/biogas plants and those nuclear plants that can safely be operated and all white papers and studies I have read say that we can shut down lignite coal pretty quickly and at prices that are competitive to a nuclear scenario.
dmix 5y ago
Pakistan claimed great numbers too before their park was built but when it came to IRL implementation of solar it turned out way more expensive and was supposed to be 1000MWp and after almost a decade is still only 90MWp, it was also way more expensive to operate compared to alternatives because it was build near sand dunes and cleaning them constantly jacked the prices up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park?oldformat=true#Controversies_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park?oldfor... (And this is without the whole battery debate with Nuclear) I wouldn't be surprised at the Natrium reactor price doubling or tripling by the time it's done based on every major infrastructure project in Europe and the US in recent decades. I'd much rather compare completed projects.
- tfourb 5y ago
  I can't speak for the plant in Pakistan, I know nothing about this. But in the case of Germany, these types of calculations are pretty conservative and have been proven to be so over more than two decades. I completely agree that construction costs of bigger projects are generally hard to predict, which in my book is another argument for a more decentralized approach.
infamia 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? Solar/wind is generally not suitable to provide of base loads at this time. Nuclear power has provided base loads for decades. Power companies charge each other a lot more for base load than variable loads. With that in mind, renewables can't generally be compared to nuclear - they're in a different class from one another.

by tfourb 5y ago

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.
tfourb 5y ago
I get your point. But with regards to climate change, the goal has to be to reduce CO2 emissions substantially within the next ten years. Even if the entire German population would become great advocates for nuclear energy overnight (which it won't), there is simply no way that a massive expansion of nuclear energy production would be possible within the next decade. Median construction times for nuclear reactors is around 8 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... Not sure if this includes planning times (probably not entirely) and I doubt that the reactor would deliver maximum power immediately. Smaller scale renewable projects can be (and are) realized in a fraction of the time. They are proven technologies that continue to become cheaper. And of course there are gigantic potentials in terms of simply using less energy. The German (or any) government could simply mandate that all existing building stock would have to reduce their energy consumption by X% over the next ten years. The technologies for that exist, are used every day and the only limit on their deployment is the required capital, to which governments have pretty much unlimited access.

rswskg 5y ago

Why bother? A europe wide 'cold, calm, grey' would mean no power generated. I feel the german prejudice of nuclear power is fueling your view point, a very detrimental view I might add when as a nation this is continuing the burning lignite coal. Continuing this over closing german nuclear power stations should be counted as an environmental catastrophe but is bizarrely given a pass.

tfourb 5y ago
Yeah, but how often is the entirety of Europe "cold, calm, grey"? Europe's power markets are pretty integrated. Just recently a new power line was inaugurated that gives Norwegian hydropower better access to continental Europe. Combine this with batteries, other storage technologies, offshore wind, natural/biogas plants and those nuclear plants that can safely be operated and all white papers and studies I have read say that we can shut down lignite coal pretty quickly and at prices that are competitive to a nuclear scenario.

dmix 5y ago

Pakistan claimed great numbers too before their park was built but when it came to IRL implementation of solar it turned out way more expensive and was supposed to be 1000MWp and after almost a decade is still only 90MWp, it was also way more expensive to operate compared to alternatives because it was build near sand dunes and cleaning them constantly jacked the prices up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park?oldformat=true#Controversies_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park?oldfor... (And this is without the whole battery debate with Nuclear) I wouldn't be surprised at the Natrium reactor price doubling or tripling by the time it's done based on every major infrastructure project in Europe and the US in recent decades. I'd much rather compare completed projects.

tfourb 5y ago
I can't speak for the plant in Pakistan, I know nothing about this. But in the case of Germany, these types of calculations are pretty conservative and have been proven to be so over more than two decades. I completely agree that construction costs of bigger projects are generally hard to predict, which in my book is another argument for a more decentralized approach.

infamia 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? Solar/wind is generally not suitable to provide of base loads at this time. Nuclear power has provided base loads for decades. Power companies charge each other a lot more for base load than variable loads. With that in mind, renewables can't generally be compared to nuclear - they're in a different class from one another.