4 ms·
> Why don’t we band together, mass produce 2500 nuclear plants that are at least as large, and make an actual difference. Because the same climate activists wh
by NeverFade 3y ago
> Why don’t we band together, mass produce 2500 nuclear plants that are at least as large, and make an actual difference.
Because the same climate activists who keep harping on the "climate crisis" and successfully push policies like in OP, are also irrationally opposed to nuclear energy.
Since these folks are calling the shots, we're heading into an energy crisis in which:
1. More and more demand is placed on our power grid due to moves like banning natural gas for heating.
2. This same power grid is rendered less and less capable and reliable due to being increasingly based on unreliable energy sources like wind and solar.
- sharemywin 3y agoI grabbed some stats off google: solar nuclear and battery costs Companies that are planning new nuclear units are currently indicating that the total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant. Installing a solar farms will cost about $0.80 to $1.36 per watt. Solar farm costs can be estimated by energy output (megawatts) or size (acres). One megawatt is the power equal to 1 million watts, and one megawatt will power about 164 homes. ~$800-$1360/kw Battery: $152/kWh Now, BNEF expects the volume-weighted average battery pack price to rise to $152/kWh in 2023
- slashdev 3y agoNuclear would get some serious economies of scale at 2500 units, so those prices aren't a fair comparison of what could be. I've long maintained here on HN, however, that under-investment in nuclear has made it not cost effective compared to renewables + storage (remember you don't need 100% storage.) At current market prices, nuclear doesn't make much sense. It could have really helped if we'd started earlier with it though, before renewables were in the picture.