3 ms·

Nuclear is slow and massive to build indeed :) However, the few last nuclear plants in Germany produced more power than the 250B€, 20 years planned, solar-pane

Nuclear is slow and massive to build indeed :) However, the few last nuclear plants in Germany produced more power than the 250B€, 20 years planned, solar-panels German total farms in 2020. Those plants are planned to be closed down this year and next year.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
20 years ago nuclear was cheaper than solar. Today, solar is cheaper than nuclear. P.S. And a large part of the reason for that is because Germany and Denmark invested heavily in wind & solar while it didn't make economic sense. They really helped bump us up the manufacturing learning curve. Thanks, Denmark and Germany!
- p2detar 5y ago
  Well, afaik energy produced from wind & solar is being sold with higher priority on the common EU market. So Germany is making tons of cash selling their energy and when they close all nuclear plants, they plan to import energy from other EU producers. That includes brown energy which is cheaper. If you ask me, this makes perfect economic sense.
- edhelas 5y ago
  When you're comparing cost, are you comparing the total system? This means backup + grid + management of intermittence? Because comparing the cost of a solar panel and a nuclear power-plant is like comparing apples and bananas if you actually want to power-up your computer 24/7.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Yes. Grid scale batteries and solar have plunged precipitously in price. While solar has bottomed out, batteries look to fall still further. Nuclear hasnt. It currently requires pretty lavish subsidies to be built on top of the ones they already had. (this is not true in the UK, but in the UK hornsea's lower intermittency + batteries will likely beat out hinkley point C on cost even though solar + batteries probably couldnt with the UK's weather)
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Yes. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify Nuclear is also pretty bad at 24/7 power. It produces steady power, but what we really need is dispatchable power, to match the peaks and valleys in demand. The intermittency of renewables can be solved with batteries or other storage. We only need about 3 hours of batteries, a little bit of overbuilding and a good grid to handle its intermittency.
- barney54 5y ago
  But is solar + batteries cheaper than nuclear or solar + long duration storage cheaper than nuclear. This is the real question. Solar’s great, but the grid has to be balanced 24/7/365. If we are going to electrify, will we need massive amount of electricity in old wind months when the sun isn’t necessarily shining and the wind isn’t necessarily blowing. We need a diversity of options so the grid is robust.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Probably yes, especially if one looks at 2030 (or later) when a nuclear plant whose planning started today might be ready. We do not need nuclear for diversity. Nuclear is utterly terrible at acting as a backup power source for a mostly renewable grid. Nuclear will either be most of the grid, or it will be pushed out entirely.
- gwright 5y ago
  > Today, solar is cheaper than nuclear. Are you counting the generation capacity that has to exist to backup the solar? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Not exactly. A coal or gas plant is cheap up-front but has high operating costs. Solar is the opposite (as is nuclear). With Solar + backup peaked plants you do need to have two systems, but energy is gloriously cheap when the sun is shining.
    - gwright 5y ago
      > but energy is gloriously cheap when the sun is shining. This seems like a misunderstanding of how to evaluate costs. You can't selectively ignore some costs and then assert that the energy is "cheap". Well you can do that, but it is an entirely unconvincing argument/analysis.
mikro2nd 5y ago
I think the real point is less about the cost than about time and budget overruns when comparing nuclear vs. renewable projects. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single solar or wind project that's run late or over budget, whereas I'd be even more hard pressed to come up with a nuclear build that has not run late and overbudget, and usually by large margins.
cmarschner 5y ago
In today‘s news, the new German minister for the environment: “ He does not see the consensus on the nuclear phase-out crumbling. "I have never heard from a politician from a democratic party that he is calling for the reconstruction of nuclear energy," said Habeck. "Then he would have to say that I would like to have the nuclear waste repository in my constituency. As soon as someone says that, I will deal with the subject again." https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/habeck-klimaziele-verfehlen-1.5497909 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/habeck-klimaziele-verfeh...

bryanlarsen 5y ago

20 years ago nuclear was cheaper than solar. Today, solar is cheaper than nuclear. P.S. And a large part of the reason for that is because Germany and Denmark invested heavily in wind & solar while it didn't make economic sense. They really helped bump us up the manufacturing learning curve. Thanks, Denmark and Germany!

p2detar 5y ago
Well, afaik energy produced from wind & solar is being sold with higher priority on the common EU market. So Germany is making tons of cash selling their energy and when they close all nuclear plants, they plan to import energy from other EU producers. That includes brown energy which is cheaper. If you ask me, this makes perfect economic sense.
edhelas 5y ago
When you're comparing cost, are you comparing the total system? This means backup + grid + management of intermittence? Because comparing the cost of a solar panel and a nuclear power-plant is like comparing apples and bananas if you actually want to power-up your computer 24/7.
- pydry 5y ago
  Yes. Grid scale batteries and solar have plunged precipitously in price. While solar has bottomed out, batteries look to fall still further. Nuclear hasnt. It currently requires pretty lavish subsidies to be built on top of the ones they already had. (this is not true in the UK, but in the UK hornsea's lower intermittency + batteries will likely beat out hinkley point C on cost even though solar + batteries probably couldnt with the UK's weather)
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Yes. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify Nuclear is also pretty bad at 24/7 power. It produces steady power, but what we really need is dispatchable power, to match the peaks and valleys in demand. The intermittency of renewables can be solved with batteries or other storage. We only need about 3 hours of batteries, a little bit of overbuilding and a good grid to handle its intermittency.
barney54 5y ago
But is solar + batteries cheaper than nuclear or solar + long duration storage cheaper than nuclear. This is the real question. Solar’s great, but the grid has to be balanced 24/7/365. If we are going to electrify, will we need massive amount of electricity in old wind months when the sun isn’t necessarily shining and the wind isn’t necessarily blowing. We need a diversity of options so the grid is robust.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Probably yes, especially if one looks at 2030 (or later) when a nuclear plant whose planning started today might be ready. We do not need nuclear for diversity. Nuclear is utterly terrible at acting as a backup power source for a mostly renewable grid. Nuclear will either be most of the grid, or it will be pushed out entirely.
gwright 5y ago
> Today, solar is cheaper than nuclear. Are you counting the generation capacity that has to exist to backup the solar? If not, then you are comparing apples to oranges.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Not exactly. A coal or gas plant is cheap up-front but has high operating costs. Solar is the opposite (as is nuclear). With Solar + backup peaked plants you do need to have two systems, but energy is gloriously cheap when the sun is shining.
  - gwright 5y ago
    > but energy is gloriously cheap when the sun is shining. This seems like a misunderstanding of how to evaluate costs. You can't selectively ignore some costs and then assert that the energy is "cheap". Well you can do that, but it is an entirely unconvincing argument/analysis.

mikro2nd 5y ago

I think the real point is less about the cost than about time and budget overruns when comparing nuclear vs. renewable projects. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single solar or wind project that's run late or over budget, whereas I'd be even more hard pressed to come up with a nuclear build that has not run late and overbudget, and usually by large margins.

cmarschner 5y ago

In today‘s news, the new German minister for the environment: “ He does not see the consensus on the nuclear phase-out crumbling. "I have never heard from a politician from a democratic party that he is calling for the reconstruction of nuclear energy," said Habeck. "Then he would have to say that I would like to have the nuclear waste repository in my constituency. As soon as someone says that, I will deal with the subject again." https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/habeck-klimaziele-verfehlen-1.5497909 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/habeck-klimaziele-verfeh...