6 ms·

>Now nuclear costs 3-5x more and is simply not relevant. Compared to what ? Energy prices have jumped 2-3x in some places so far, and it's not even winter yet.

>Now nuclear costs 3-5x more and is simply not relevant. Compared to what ? Energy prices have jumped 2-3x in some places so far, and it's not even winter yet. Comparing renewable prices as averages or whatever is fine if you like blackouts ?

Gwypaas 4y ago
Then it's even better to get 3-5x the effect per invested dollar.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  Yes - amazing - the reason prices are spiking is because supply is unstable and unable to support demand - and will be even more unstable in winter. Great for people selling electricity from renewables (although EU is capping their profit for 'fairness') but sucks for consumers.
- belorn 4y ago
  I can easily earn a huge profit by trade 3-5x energy at one point in time, to get 1x energy at an other. As an example, in my zone, if someone provided 1x energy at 7pm, and I repaid that by providing 3x of that energy at 3am, I would still earn a profit of about 25%. The price prognosis for tonight is even lower, so I could trade 1x for 6x and still make a nice profit from the price difference.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    So you're saying that a solar storage system which costs a fraction of a nuclear system is way better because you produce most of your energy during high demand and can move the rest rather than producing most of it at low demand times?
kennend3 4y ago
This is the CORE of the energy debate.. People throw out whatever nonsense they like to support their position. "Nuclear costs 3-5x" and as you point out, compared to what? The cost of sitting around for 20 years debating this and not taking any action at all has lead to much worse problems - power shortages. These "anti-nuclear" types fail to apply logic to their debate. I asked how much power is produced by solar during the long winter months, i suspect they will not respond as it is against their view - solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates. You need a reliable "base" system and nuclear is very well suited for this. Our plants (CANDU) can be refuelled while producing near-full power greatly reducing the need to shut them down. The reason the temperatures fall below zero during the winter where i live is obvious.. The energy we receive from the sun has been greatly reduced. How would solar power address the reduction in available solar energy, and the increased demand for energy for heating?
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Because no one proposes solar in the north European winter. It's all about the geographically decoupled off shore wind. For the cost see for example: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - kennend3 4y ago
    I assume you find the "subsidized wind" prices attractive? Who pays the subsidies?
    - ideamotor 4y ago
      Maybe google some actual research papers on this and other energy policy questions? But what do I know.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates I agree with a lot of what you say, but also don't fall into the trap of what you are accusing others of doing. In places like Germany, Wind and solar actually counter-balance each other very well. [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-ca...
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Surely the main issue with winter in more northern regions is the significantly reduced period of the day for which any solar-generation is even possible. During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses, but you obviously need some form of storage (or incredibly good insulation, arguably a form of storage too) to ensure buildings can remain a comfortable temperature throughout the day and night. From a purely technical feasibility point of view, there's always sufficient insolation somewhere/somewhen to provide all our energy needs, but whether it's practical or economical compared to alternatives such as nuclear is worth doing the sums on.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Great reason not to choose nuclear then. Renewables are more reliable. $10 will get you one watt of nuclear which will be off 10-40% of the time. $10 of solar + wind + storage will get you at least 1 watt every hour of the year in and at least 1W of variable power even in Germany or Canada at any scale from micro generation to 100s of MW.

Gwypaas 4y ago

Then it's even better to get 3-5x the effect per invested dollar.

moonchrome 4y ago
Yes - amazing - the reason prices are spiking is because supply is unstable and unable to support demand - and will be even more unstable in winter. Great for people selling electricity from renewables (although EU is capping their profit for 'fairness') but sucks for consumers.
belorn 4y ago
I can easily earn a huge profit by trade 3-5x energy at one point in time, to get 1x energy at an other. As an example, in my zone, if someone provided 1x energy at 7pm, and I repaid that by providing 3x of that energy at 3am, I would still earn a profit of about 25%. The price prognosis for tonight is even lower, so I could trade 1x for 6x and still make a nice profit from the price difference.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So you're saying that a solar storage system which costs a fraction of a nuclear system is way better because you produce most of your energy during high demand and can move the rest rather than producing most of it at low demand times?

kennend3 4y ago

This is the CORE of the energy debate.. People throw out whatever nonsense they like to support their position. "Nuclear costs 3-5x" and as you point out, compared to what? The cost of sitting around for 20 years debating this and not taking any action at all has lead to much worse problems - power shortages. These "anti-nuclear" types fail to apply logic to their debate. I asked how much power is produced by solar during the long winter months, i suspect they will not respond as it is against their view - solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates. You need a reliable "base" system and nuclear is very well suited for this. Our plants (CANDU) can be refuelled while producing near-full power greatly reducing the need to shut them down. The reason the temperatures fall below zero during the winter where i live is obvious.. The energy we receive from the sun has been greatly reduced. How would solar power address the reduction in available solar energy, and the increased demand for energy for heating?

Gwypaas 4y ago
Because no one proposes solar in the north European winter. It's all about the geographically decoupled off shore wind. For the cost see for example: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- kennend3 4y ago
  I assume you find the "subsidized wind" prices attractive? Who pays the subsidies?
  - ideamotor 4y ago
    Maybe google some actual research papers on this and other energy policy questions? But what do I know.
RC_ITR 4y ago
>solar is NOT viable in cold-weather climates I agree with a lot of what you say, but also don't fall into the trap of what you are accusing others of doing. In places like Germany, Wind and solar actually counter-balance each other very well. [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-capacity-factors-for-wind-and-PV-for-Germany-The-dots-represent_fig3_334171681 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Seasonal-cycle-of-the-ca...
wizofaus 4y ago
Surely the main issue with winter in more northern regions is the significantly reduced period of the day for which any solar-generation is even possible. During the daylight hours there's still more than enough total insolation to heat the small amount of air we need to inside our houses, but you obviously need some form of storage (or incredibly good insulation, arguably a form of storage too) to ensure buildings can remain a comfortable temperature throughout the day and night. From a purely technical feasibility point of view, there's always sufficient insolation somewhere/somewhen to provide all our energy needs, but whether it's practical or economical compared to alternatives such as nuclear is worth doing the sums on.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Great reason not to choose nuclear then. Renewables are more reliable. $10 will get you one watt of nuclear which will be off 10-40% of the time. $10 of solar + wind + storage will get you at least 1 watt every hour of the year in and at least 1W of variable power even in Germany or Canada at any scale from micro generation to 100s of MW.