4 ms·

The fact it's expensive on a relative scale is irrelevant because it's cheap on an absolute scale. In fact the price of raw uranium input is 100X lower than tha

The fact it's expensive on a relative scale is irrelevant because it's cheap on an absolute scale. In fact the price of raw uranium input is 100X lower than that in a breeder reactor because more of the fuel is consumed, $0.000015/kWh. Being objectively cheap also allows you the flexibility to collect it in more expensive ways, for instance seawater extraction (which makes nuclear renewable) is only double the price, and falling as the technique is improved. > That’s ~7% of the total cost for solar per kWh and doesn’t even get you to fuel rods. Which again doesn't matter because it's still objectively and on an absolute scale very cheap. About 0.8% of the cost you pay for electricity. Solar is great, nobody, certainly not me, is trying to tell you not to build solar. The reality is the future of the grid is going to be a mix of generation sources. That's going to include solar. It should, in my opinion, also include nuclear due to their different generation characteristics. > The only thing that matters in economics is the relative scale. Nuclear being more expensive compared to the alternatives is a deal killer even if it’s not that expensive per kWh in absolute terms. I disagree because it has different supply characteristics. One supplies a constant amount over a long period of time and is difficult to adjust. The other varies massively over the course of a day and zeroes out at night. Solar alone isn't going to meet needs, you need either or both of base load plus storage in addition. It's disingenuous to compare the price of a kWh of solar by itself to nuclear when one works at night. If you want power at night, which I think many of us do, then you need to price into the $/kWh rate the cost of storage. You need to compare like for like. [edit] In 2021, utility scale solar-plus-storage with a capacity of 50 MW/200 MWh is estimated to reach $0.085-$0.158/kWh. Nuclear is $0.131-$0.204/kWh. [1] They're actually quite comparable, and we have line of sight to making nuclear cheaper. Again, nobody is advocating for a 100% nuclear grid, it's not possible, because it's only suited to providing base load. A 100% solar grid is impossible because of the night time. [edit2] Are you not reading what I'm saying? Nobody is advocating for a 100% nuclear grid. I am advocating for a mixed grid of renewables and nuclear where each operates according to its optimal utility function. [1] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/05/utility-scale-solar-reaches-lcoe-of-0-028-0-041-kwh-in-the-us-lazard-finds/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/11/05/utility-scale-solar-r...

Retric 4y ago
The only thing that matters in economics is the relative scale. Nuclear being more expensive compared to the alternatives is a deal killer even if it’s not that expensive per kWh in absolute terms. Again if 7% represented a total fuel costs that might be helpful benchmark, but Nuclear’s actual fuel costs are higher than Solar’s total costs. Yes, that’s right even if the only costs where fuel rods nuclear would already be more expensive than Solar per kWh. Edit: In response to your edit unsubsidized Nuclear is currently more expensive than unsubsidized solar + batteries which can not only provide 24/7/365 power but actually respond to changing grid demand. Base load power isn’t a benefit it’s a major limitation to adoption because demand isn’t constant. A true apples to apples comparison shows a 100% Nuclear grid would required vast price increase, while a 100% solar grid is roughly the same price as what we pay today. Edit2: “Nuclear is $0.131-$0.204/kWh” that’s only for base load nuclear costs skyrocket if you want to respond to changing grid demand on a 100% nuclear grid. Rough estimates are close to 50c/kWh for a pure nuclear grid which is why nobody did so and even France was forced to import and export a large fraction of their generation and useage.
moloch-hai 4y ago
There is no place for nukes, just because because they cost so many times more than renewables. They cost, per kWh, even more run intermittently. What you need in backup generation is cheap construction. Storage cost is falling even faster than solar and wind. We already have the combined-cycle gas turbines. Their opex falls with duty cycle. Duty cycle falls with renewable generation buildout and, eventually, storage buildout.
Retric 4y ago
> [edit2] Are you not reading what I'm saying? Nobody is advocating for a 100% nuclear grid. I am advocating for a mixed grid of renewables and nuclear where each operates according to its optimal utility function. The point was illustrative. We already have nuclear, the only point of advocating nuclear is if you want to increase it. Unfortunately, a 35% nuclear grid costs more per kWh than a 30% nuclear grid, and I don’t think most nuclear advocates understand why. Your 50 MW/200 MWh numbers are basically what it costs for a 100% solar grid. So it’s not even clear if any nuclear would be cost effective in most areas. Alaska and Russia clearly can benefit from nuclear power, it’s not obvious if California, Texas etc will.

Retric 4y ago

The only thing that matters in economics is the relative scale. Nuclear being more expensive compared to the alternatives is a deal killer even if it’s not that expensive per kWh in absolute terms. Again if 7% represented a total fuel costs that might be helpful benchmark, but Nuclear’s actual fuel costs are higher than Solar’s total costs. Yes, that’s right even if the only costs where fuel rods nuclear would already be more expensive than Solar per kWh. Edit: In response to your edit unsubsidized Nuclear is currently more expensive than unsubsidized solar + batteries which can not only provide 24/7/365 power but actually respond to changing grid demand. Base load power isn’t a benefit it’s a major limitation to adoption because demand isn’t constant. A true apples to apples comparison shows a 100% Nuclear grid would required vast price increase, while a 100% solar grid is roughly the same price as what we pay today. Edit2: “Nuclear is $0.131-$0.204/kWh” that’s only for base load nuclear costs skyrocket if you want to respond to changing grid demand on a 100% nuclear grid. Rough estimates are close to 50c/kWh for a pure nuclear grid which is why nobody did so and even France was forced to import and export a large fraction of their generation and useage.

moloch-hai 4y ago

There is no place for nukes, just because because they cost so many times more than renewables. They cost, per kWh, even more run intermittently. What you need in backup generation is cheap construction. Storage cost is falling even faster than solar and wind. We already have the combined-cycle gas turbines. Their opex falls with duty cycle. Duty cycle falls with renewable generation buildout and, eventually, storage buildout.

Retric 4y ago

> [edit2] Are you not reading what I'm saying? Nobody is advocating for a 100% nuclear grid. I am advocating for a mixed grid of renewables and nuclear where each operates according to its optimal utility function. The point was illustrative. We already have nuclear, the only point of advocating nuclear is if you want to increase it. Unfortunately, a 35% nuclear grid costs more per kWh than a 30% nuclear grid, and I don’t think most nuclear advocates understand why. Your 50 MW/200 MWh numbers are basically what it costs for a 100% solar grid. So it’s not even clear if any nuclear would be cost effective in most areas. Alaska and Russia clearly can benefit from nuclear power, it’s not obvious if California, Texas etc will.