4 ms·

Was also the first thing that I noted. They're comparing fictional nuclear prices with real renewable prices. One more thing though that makes this calculation

by hannob 4y ago

Was also the first thing that I noted. They're comparing fictional nuclear prices with real renewable prices. One more thing though that makes this calculation even more ridiculous: They're comparing today's wind+solar prices with a tech that's supposed to be available in the 2030s. Like, they're assuming wind+solar won't progress in the next 10 years. That's... a very unrealistic thing to assume.

helloooooooo 4y ago
You also have to consider distribution infrastructure. Currently, the Ontario grid is built to hand distribution from majority nuclear sources. When replacing nuclear reactors with wind and solar, it changes the centralized nature of the grid’s power source. The government then needs to invest big bucks into re-orienting the grid towards distributed distribution. Given that would mean going from one extreme to another, it’s no question why the government would feather replace nuclear with nuclear
IMTDb 4y ago
Bear in mind that those known renewable prices are always including the little asterisk "* prices only computed when sun is shining and wind is blowing". Renewable prices are computed as : "I put $XXX and got this much electricity during the year, so price per watt is $YYY -> renewable is cheap" That calculation is not reflective of the reality of the needs. People - and anyone in charge of maintaining a power grid - think like so : "I need YYY watts of electricity now, how much $XXX do I need to put down to get it ?" That amount is massively higher in price per watt with renewable, because renewable can sometime works at >90% of their potential, and provide cheap and abundant electricity or they can decide to work at < 1% and be completely useless. And I have never seen anyone advocating for renewable that is willing to say "Please do cut my home line to save electricity when it's dark and windless - even in November - if batteries are low. I think it's better than building reliable backup supply". Nuclear is the preferred choice here because you are going to get electricity in those situation at the push of a button. Maybe prices will be higher than the price per watt of renewable, but it will provide electricity when no amount of wind farms and solar panels are going to do the job. Meaning when prices of renewable are approaching infinity. In that case, expensive nuclear is still cheaper than failing renewable. Batteries can help renewable, but no one in anywhere near the ability to store energy for a whole country for weeks in cold countries, when days are very short and wind can just decide to stop blowing. There are other options than nuclear - like the usual coal, gas and oil, but they have their own problems - like CO2 emission. Other options include geothermal and hydro but they have ecological aspects as well, and tend to be more expensive than nuclear.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- whacko_quacko 4y ago
  Actually the article mentions, that solar is running at 40% capacity on average (according to industry data) And it's STILL cheaper than nuclear watt for watt. That being said, I think nuclear power is a necessary part of a sustainable energy mix, because it is much easier to satisfy ground load with it, and you don't have storage issues. (But this article is stupid at best and disingenuous at worst)
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    > Actually the article mentions, that solar is running at 40% capacity on average (according to industry data) Fascinating that we've managed to get solar panel working at 40% capacity at night.
- ezzaf 4y ago
  > but no one in anywhere near the ability to store energy for a whole country for weeks in cold countries, when days are very short and wind can just decide to stop blowing Sure they do, the storage is just called hydroelectricity. There are parts of the world (eg Tasmania) with months of energy storage. For the realised cost of nuclear and construction timeframe of nuclear, you could build a resilient supply with a distributed transmission grid and a mix of batteries and pumped hydro.
  - tinco 4y ago
    Did you pick Tasmania because it is just about exactly on the other side of the planet of Ontario? Are you going to pump the hydro through the earths core? Months of energy storage for ~500.000 Tasmanians is like a day or two for the ~15 million Ontarians.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Yes, I always find it odd that people act like solar being cheap at noon matters at midnight. We might as well say coal is free underground so renewables are a non-starter. We need energy at a specific place and time. Renewables don't meet those needs. We get them where the weather permits when the weather permits.
hnaccount_rng 4y ago
The _really_ interesting point is: They still come up short (or close enough that it doesn't make a difference). And that's the most optimistic thing proponents are willing to come up with.

by hannob 4y ago

helloooooooo 4y ago

You also have to consider distribution infrastructure. Currently, the Ontario grid is built to hand distribution from majority nuclear sources. When replacing nuclear reactors with wind and solar, it changes the centralized nature of the grid’s power source. The government then needs to invest big bucks into re-orienting the grid towards distributed distribution. Given that would mean going from one extreme to another, it’s no question why the government would feather replace nuclear with nuclear

IMTDb 4y ago

Bear in mind that those known renewable prices are always including the little asterisk "* prices only computed when sun is shining and wind is blowing". Renewable prices are computed as : "I put $XXX and got this much electricity during the year, so price per watt is $YYY -> renewable is cheap" That calculation is not reflective of the reality of the needs. People - and anyone in charge of maintaining a power grid - think like so : "I need YYY watts of electricity now, how much $XXX do I need to put down to get it ?" That amount is massively higher in price per watt with renewable, because renewable can sometime works at >90% of their potential, and provide cheap and abundant electricity or they can decide to work at < 1% and be completely useless. And I have never seen anyone advocating for renewable that is willing to say "Please do cut my home line to save electricity when it's dark and windless - even in November - if batteries are low. I think it's better than building reliable backup supply". Nuclear is the preferred choice here because you are going to get electricity in those situation at the push of a button. Maybe prices will be higher than the price per watt of renewable, but it will provide electricity when no amount of wind farms and solar panels are going to do the job. Meaning when prices of renewable are approaching infinity. In that case, expensive nuclear is still cheaper than failing renewable. Batteries can help renewable, but no one in anywhere near the ability to store energy for a whole country for weeks in cold countries, when days are very short and wind can just decide to stop blowing. There are other options than nuclear - like the usual coal, gas and oil, but they have their own problems - like CO2 emission. Other options include geothermal and hydro but they have ecological aspects as well, and tend to be more expensive than nuclear.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
whacko_quacko 4y ago
Actually the article mentions, that solar is running at 40% capacity on average (according to industry data) And it's STILL cheaper than nuclear watt for watt. That being said, I think nuclear power is a necessary part of a sustainable energy mix, because it is much easier to satisfy ground load with it, and you don't have storage issues. (But this article is stupid at best and disingenuous at worst)
- thrown_22 4y ago
  > Actually the article mentions, that solar is running at 40% capacity on average (according to industry data) Fascinating that we've managed to get solar panel working at 40% capacity at night.
ezzaf 4y ago
> but no one in anywhere near the ability to store energy for a whole country for weeks in cold countries, when days are very short and wind can just decide to stop blowing Sure they do, the storage is just called hydroelectricity. There are parts of the world (eg Tasmania) with months of energy storage. For the realised cost of nuclear and construction timeframe of nuclear, you could build a resilient supply with a distributed transmission grid and a mix of batteries and pumped hydro.
- tinco 4y ago
  Did you pick Tasmania because it is just about exactly on the other side of the planet of Ontario? Are you going to pump the hydro through the earths core? Months of energy storage for ~500.000 Tasmanians is like a day or two for the ~15 million Ontarians.
thrown_22 4y ago
Yes, I always find it odd that people act like solar being cheap at noon matters at midnight. We might as well say coal is free underground so renewables are a non-starter. We need energy at a specific place and time. Renewables don't meet those needs. We get them where the weather permits when the weather permits.

hnaccount_rng 4y ago

The _really_ interesting point is: They still come up short (or close enough that it doesn't make a difference). And that's the most optimistic thing proponents are willing to come up with.