4 ms·

I don’t think the nuclear comparison is as amazing as it seems. Assuming capacity is peak output, the actual average capacity will depend on solar irradiance. B

I don’t think the nuclear comparison is as amazing as it seems. Assuming capacity is peak output, the actual average capacity will depend on solar irradiance. Based on this article: https://renewablemarketwatch.com/news-analysis/368-france-surpassed-10-gw-cumulative-installed-solar-photovoltaic-capacity-in-2020 https://renewablemarketwatch.com/news-analysis/368-france-su... 10GW of solar produced 4460GWh of energy in a quarter. That’s 20% average capacity factor. According to Wikipedia French nuclear power has a capacity factor of 77% (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France) So nuclear is around 4x more expensive for 7-15x better capacity factor. And you don’t need to store it for use at night. This all varies but it’s not as clear of a slam dunk as the capacities would directly imply.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://i.imgur.com/snxjC6L.png https://i.imgur.com/snxjC6L.png The comparison doesn’t have to be amazing, the benefit simply needs to be sufficient for capital allocation to tilt towards renewables. As they approach 1-2 cents/kWh at utility scale, batteries can take up the majority of your per kWh costs and you still come out ahead. Why build nuclear when solar/wind/batteries are cheaper and built much, much faster? I don’t understand the religious fervor for which nuclear is supported by some folks when the math is clear.
- himinlomax 4y ago
  Batteries in winter would have to store months of solar power. Price THAT.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Seasonality index is 2. Double the PV, now you're paying half as much as nuclear rather than a quarter. Or use the wind turbines during december.
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      There was almost no wind across Europe in the first half of December. Also I doubt there was only half as much sun then in Northern France as there was during summer. It's a laughable assumption on the face of it: day time is nearly halved, sun is low on the horizon, and then cloud cover is much higher. May be true for California, though, but completely irrelevant.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        So you've already backed off fromcertainly needing months to a couple of low wind and doubting things that are objectively measurable. Add in some taller turbines, interlinks, and a little bit of hydro and we'll see these lofty claims evaporate even further. Turns out real systems are more complex than vad faith generalities.
- ericpauley 4y ago
  Nuclear stalled long before solar, so clearly that’s not the reason. Nuclear has had an unfortunate history of purposeful subterfuge by big oil, combined with unfortunate but relatively insignificant safety lapses.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

https://i.imgur.com/snxjC6L.png https://i.imgur.com/snxjC6L.png The comparison doesn’t have to be amazing, the benefit simply needs to be sufficient for capital allocation to tilt towards renewables. As they approach 1-2 cents/kWh at utility scale, batteries can take up the majority of your per kWh costs and you still come out ahead. Why build nuclear when solar/wind/batteries are cheaper and built much, much faster? I don’t understand the religious fervor for which nuclear is supported by some folks when the math is clear.

himinlomax 4y ago
Batteries in winter would have to store months of solar power. Price THAT.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Seasonality index is 2. Double the PV, now you're paying half as much as nuclear rather than a quarter. Or use the wind turbines during december.
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    There was almost no wind across Europe in the first half of December. Also I doubt there was only half as much sun then in Northern France as there was during summer. It's a laughable assumption on the face of it: day time is nearly halved, sun is low on the horizon, and then cloud cover is much higher. May be true for California, though, but completely irrelevant.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      So you've already backed off fromcertainly needing months to a couple of low wind and doubting things that are objectively measurable. Add in some taller turbines, interlinks, and a little bit of hydro and we'll see these lofty claims evaporate even further. Turns out real systems are more complex than vad faith generalities.
ericpauley 4y ago
Nuclear stalled long before solar, so clearly that’s not the reason. Nuclear has had an unfortunate history of purposeful subterfuge by big oil, combined with unfortunate but relatively insignificant safety lapses.