4 ms·

There are some counter arguments to what you said, but I agree for the most part. The exact numbers are below for anyone curious. The cost of generating solar

There are some counter arguments to what you said, but I agree for the most part. The exact numbers are below for anyone curious. The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...

hedora 5y ago
Those prices don't include storage or over-provisioning for cloudy / still days. Nuclear is still likely cost effective at night, or in the rainy season. The only other carbon neutral technologies rely on special geographical features (geothermal, hydro). One way to think about energy moving forward is reducing the problem to heating houses with heat pumps during stormy weather, or at night. Solar, wind and batteries basically imply we'll have surplus energy in all other scenarios.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Yes and nuclear power also needs overprovisioning, storage etc (nuclear power plants can not follow load, they just generate constantly). The question than is would the cost for nuclear overprovisioning or solar/wind overprovisioning be higher. BTW there have been several publications that performed modelling on large integrated grids that found there would be very little overprovisioning needed if we have a Europe wide grid (it always blows somewhere). Fortunately, the European grid is moving in this direction anyway.
  - HyperRational 5y ago
  - Vaphell 5y ago
    > nuclear power plants can not follow load, they just generate constantly nuh-uh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuc... Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute.[7] Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control.
    - raphaelj 5y ago
      This is not only about being able to increase capacity. A nuclear plant is capital expensive, and it requires to be used as much as possible to be cost competitive.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      If you operate them at 33%, that is equivalent to their power output costing 3x as much, because it costs the same to build and run, 33% or 100%. But their output is already not competitive at 100%. Power offered at more than 3x the going rate finds no bidders. Your debt service demands revenue from sales of 100% output. You have to take whatever you can get for the power, even if it doesn't cover operating cost, to pay down the capital you spent building. When it becomes clear that you cannot bring in enough to pay for operations and debt service, you have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Of course, all this is foreseeable. So, you don't get the capital to build at all, because who wants to loan money that will predictably be defaulted on?
  - raphaelj 5y ago
    > BTW there have been several publications that performed modelling on large integrated grids that found there would be very little overprovisioning needed if we have a Europe wide grid (it always blows somewhere). I tried for a long time to find such publications (for or against renewables). Could you like a few of these? Thanks.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Thing is, solar and wind cost are still trending sharply down, with no floor in sight. Nuke cost has gone up. So, no matter how badly nukes fare today, they will fare much worse in ten years. And, storage cost is falling even faster than solar or wind ever did. So, provisioning 2x, 3x, 5x solar + storage will still be cheaper than nukes. Storage in the form of transportable liquids, even where round-trip efficiency is low, is very attractive because you don't need long-term storage if you can import what you need, in a pinch, from the tropics. And, whenever the tankage you do have is full, you may sell the extra production for industrial use. The world can absorb an effectively unlimited amount of hydrogen and ammonia overproduction.

hedora 5y ago

Those prices don't include storage or over-provisioning for cloudy / still days. Nuclear is still likely cost effective at night, or in the rainy season. The only other carbon neutral technologies rely on special geographical features (geothermal, hydro). One way to think about energy moving forward is reducing the problem to heating houses with heat pumps during stormy weather, or at night. Solar, wind and batteries basically imply we'll have surplus energy in all other scenarios.

cycomanic 5y ago
Yes and nuclear power also needs overprovisioning, storage etc (nuclear power plants can not follow load, they just generate constantly). The question than is would the cost for nuclear overprovisioning or solar/wind overprovisioning be higher. BTW there have been several publications that performed modelling on large integrated grids that found there would be very little overprovisioning needed if we have a Europe wide grid (it always blows somewhere). Fortunately, the European grid is moving in this direction anyway.
- HyperRational 5y ago
- Vaphell 5y ago
  > nuclear power plants can not follow load, they just generate constantly nuh-uh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuclear_power_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant#Nuc... Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute.[7] Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control.
  - raphaelj 5y ago
    This is not only about being able to increase capacity. A nuclear plant is capital expensive, and it requires to be used as much as possible to be cost competitive.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    If you operate them at 33%, that is equivalent to their power output costing 3x as much, because it costs the same to build and run, 33% or 100%. But their output is already not competitive at 100%. Power offered at more than 3x the going rate finds no bidders. Your debt service demands revenue from sales of 100% output. You have to take whatever you can get for the power, even if it doesn't cover operating cost, to pay down the capital you spent building. When it becomes clear that you cannot bring in enough to pay for operations and debt service, you have no choice but to declare bankruptcy. Of course, all this is foreseeable. So, you don't get the capital to build at all, because who wants to loan money that will predictably be defaulted on?
- raphaelj 5y ago
  > BTW there have been several publications that performed modelling on large integrated grids that found there would be very little overprovisioning needed if we have a Europe wide grid (it always blows somewhere). I tried for a long time to find such publications (for or against renewables). Could you like a few of these? Thanks.
ncmncm 5y ago
Thing is, solar and wind cost are still trending sharply down, with no floor in sight. Nuke cost has gone up. So, no matter how badly nukes fare today, they will fare much worse in ten years. And, storage cost is falling even faster than solar or wind ever did. So, provisioning 2x, 3x, 5x solar + storage will still be cheaper than nukes. Storage in the form of transportable liquids, even where round-trip efficiency is low, is very attractive because you don't need long-term storage if you can import what you need, in a pinch, from the tropics. And, whenever the tankage you do have is full, you may sell the extra production for industrial use. The world can absorb an effectively unlimited amount of hydrogen and ammonia overproduction.