4 ms·

> Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that it needs to be run at 100% capacity as much as possible in order to amortize its absurd building costs

> Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that it needs to be run at 100% capacity as much as possible in order to amortize its absurd building costs over its low operating costs. Can you not make the same argument for wind/solar? If any power generator isn't capable of dumping it's full output onto the grid when possible, it's not going to be profitable. This pdf seems to indicate that wind is allowed to just dump all of their output onto the grid and everyone else has to ramp up or down. Which doesn't give realistic comparisons of cost between the two. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61721.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61721.pdf

bobthepanda 4y ago
Wind and solar are unique in that their fuel has a cost of $0, which is why they’ve been putting some fossil fuel plants out of business. Nuclear still needs some fuel that costs money to obtain and handle.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Nuclear also has higher "fixed" O&M costs, from all that staffing.
Ma8ee 4y ago
In particular wind is very inexpensive.
- teddyh 4y ago
  Sometimes wind is free, but some other times, you can’t get it for love or money. Same with solar. This is why they can never be a solution by themselves. (Until battery technology improves, and please, let me know if that ever happens.)
  - Ma8ee 4y ago
    The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. And we can have enough wind so even when it delivers say less than 50% of max, it will be enough. And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. When the energy we put in is for free, it doesn't matter that the efficiency is 30% or even 20% for the full cycle. And this can't be said for nuclear power. It's so expensive to build and run, so it has to run most of the time to make a profit. And this will of course be problem when it sells it output on the same market as wind, where many days the cost of electricity is almost zero.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      > The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. Fair enough. > And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. From what I understand, those are not worth the cost. Is is even remotely feasible to even produce, let alone build, enough solar and/or wind electricity production plants which give enough hydrogen to be able to handle the world’s energy needs? Even in places with extended periods without sun and wind? Until that is true, nuclear seems to be the only alternative left which is not oil, coal, or natural gas. (Left out is hydro, which, from what I understand, is already built everywhere it can be built.)
mrep 4y ago
Bad phrasing on my part. Wind/solar/nuclear are all basically pure capex with no marginal cost to producing max energy so they all need to be run at 100%. To handle daily/seasonal energy demands though, you'll want to run any of those all the time and thus dump surplus energy into some type of storage to reduce capex costs and dynamically handle demand with some type of peaker. So your options are nuclear surplus + storage or wind/solar surplus + storage but why light your money on fire with nuclear creating said storage when wind/solar are 1/3 the cost.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Wind and solar are unique in that their fuel has a cost of $0, which is why they’ve been putting some fossil fuel plants out of business. Nuclear still needs some fuel that costs money to obtain and handle.

pfdietz 4y ago
Nuclear also has higher "fixed" O&M costs, from all that staffing.

Ma8ee 4y ago

In particular wind is very inexpensive.

teddyh 4y ago
Sometimes wind is free, but some other times, you can’t get it for love or money. Same with solar. This is why they can never be a solution by themselves. (Until battery technology improves, and please, let me know if that ever happens.)
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. And we can have enough wind so even when it delivers say less than 50% of max, it will be enough. And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. When the energy we put in is for free, it doesn't matter that the efficiency is 30% or even 20% for the full cycle. And this can't be said for nuclear power. It's so expensive to build and run, so it has to run most of the time to make a profit. And this will of course be problem when it sells it output on the same market as wind, where many days the cost of electricity is almost zero.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. Fair enough. > And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. From what I understand, those are not worth the cost. Is is even remotely feasible to even produce, let alone build, enough solar and/or wind electricity production plants which give enough hydrogen to be able to handle the world’s energy needs? Even in places with extended periods without sun and wind? Until that is true, nuclear seems to be the only alternative left which is not oil, coal, or natural gas. (Left out is hydro, which, from what I understand, is already built everywhere it can be built.)

mrep 4y ago

Bad phrasing on my part. Wind/solar/nuclear are all basically pure capex with no marginal cost to producing max energy so they all need to be run at 100%. To handle daily/seasonal energy demands though, you'll want to run any of those all the time and thus dump surplus energy into some type of storage to reduce capex costs and dynamically handle demand with some type of peaker. So your options are nuclear surplus + storage or wind/solar surplus + storage but why light your money on fire with nuclear creating said storage when wind/solar are 1/3 the cost.