4 ms·

There is, in fact, far more than enough raw materials for all the batteries that will be needed. Stationary batteries do not need lithium. And utilities can st

by ncmncm 4y ago

There is, in fact, far more than enough raw materials for all the batteries that will be needed. Stationary batteries do not need lithium. And utilities can store energy in bulk without batteries, in other media. All the nukes will be mothballed as there comes to be zero hours during which they can offer power at a competitive price. Each reduction in duty cycle means they have to bid higher for what is left. Owners may write off capex and try to get enough just to pay to maintain their turbines, and fail at that, too.

KptMarchewa 4y ago
"Mothballed" nukes cost within the margin of error the same as running ones. Nuclear costs are builing and decommission, and of course kickbacks to financial system since it's obviously better for energy company to borrow on X+8% rate rather than government on X%.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  A running nuke needs its steam turbine maintained, a periodically expensive proposition. Capex, of course, is on top of that. Decommissioning is part of capex, though probably taxpayers will mostly end up on the hook for that. Does it cost less to keep running than for decommission?
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  And lifetime very intense security. You say reactor, I say dirty bomb. They can't be left unattended and they aren't generally. A few grams of radioactive material and some cheap explosives can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. And regular inspections and repairs. They do break down once in a while too. Basically you have a lot of moving parts that need maintenance. And waste disposal and storage; which contrary to the popular belief is neither a solved problem nor free. Nuclear waste can't be left unattended either. Securing it in a place that is acceptable seems to be an elusive problem. And you need specially trained staff, constant vigilance against nuclear incidents, constant drills to practice emergency procedures. Screening people to make sure they are not being exposed to radiation, etc. All of that is cost and it adds up to quite a lot. Actually generating the power is the easy bit. It's all the rest that makes nuclear tough to do cost effectively. In short, this is why nuclear in the current market is one of the more expensive options; even in nuclear friendly places like the US where a lot of that cost is hidden and tax sponsored or in France which just decrees an electricity price that is actually below the cost price. It's still cost. Take away the government support and these plants go bankrupt in no time at all. In theory it can probably be done a bit cheaper and there are some companies working on that obviously. But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Which as I was arguing earlier would in any case be a mistake as they are very likely to come down by at least 10x more over the lifetime of whatever plants people are currently planning to build. There are many good reasons to still build a few. But energy price isn't one of those reasons.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    All of those are constant costs, independent of actually generating energy. Those are problems, which are solvable by predictable amounts of money. Once you commit to it, they aren't a problem. Real problem is that those look like low hanging fruit to politicians, that love to gut programs, where effect will be seen decades later. We can see this now in France, which was so close to actual energy independency. >But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Yeah, but those regularly produce energy below 5% capacity factor. You have to compare nuclear to renewables + storage. Once you have solution that can withstand December in Poland - very low solar capacity, low wind capacity - you have something to talk about.

by ncmncm 4y ago

KptMarchewa 4y ago

"Mothballed" nukes cost within the margin of error the same as running ones. Nuclear costs are builing and decommission, and of course kickbacks to financial system since it's obviously better for energy company to borrow on X+8% rate rather than government on X%.

ncmncm 4y ago
A running nuke needs its steam turbine maintained, a periodically expensive proposition. Capex, of course, is on top of that. Decommissioning is part of capex, though probably taxpayers will mostly end up on the hook for that. Does it cost less to keep running than for decommission?
jillesvangurp 4y ago
And lifetime very intense security. You say reactor, I say dirty bomb. They can't be left unattended and they aren't generally. A few grams of radioactive material and some cheap explosives can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. And regular inspections and repairs. They do break down once in a while too. Basically you have a lot of moving parts that need maintenance. And waste disposal and storage; which contrary to the popular belief is neither a solved problem nor free. Nuclear waste can't be left unattended either. Securing it in a place that is acceptable seems to be an elusive problem. And you need specially trained staff, constant vigilance against nuclear incidents, constant drills to practice emergency procedures. Screening people to make sure they are not being exposed to radiation, etc. All of that is cost and it adds up to quite a lot. Actually generating the power is the easy bit. It's all the rest that makes nuclear tough to do cost effectively. In short, this is why nuclear in the current market is one of the more expensive options; even in nuclear friendly places like the US where a lot of that cost is hidden and tax sponsored or in France which just decrees an electricity price that is actually below the cost price. It's still cost. Take away the government support and these plants go bankrupt in no time at all. In theory it can probably be done a bit cheaper and there are some companies working on that obviously. But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Which as I was arguing earlier would in any case be a mistake as they are very likely to come down by at least 10x more over the lifetime of whatever plants people are currently planning to build. There are many good reasons to still build a few. But energy price isn't one of those reasons.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  All of those are constant costs, independent of actually generating energy. Those are problems, which are solvable by predictable amounts of money. Once you commit to it, they aren't a problem. Real problem is that those look like low hanging fruit to politicians, that love to gut programs, where effect will be seen decades later. We can see this now in France, which was so close to actual energy independency. >But I'm not really aware of companies pitching solutions anywhere close to solar/wind pricing, even at their current price levels. Yeah, but those regularly produce energy below 5% capacity factor. You have to compare nuclear to renewables + storage. Once you have solution that can withstand December in Poland - very low solar capacity, low wind capacity - you have something to talk about.