4 ms·
Expensive though.
by LatteLazy 3y ago
Expensive though.
- JDEW 3y agoYou know what’s expensive? Treating 100s of millions of people for pollution related illnesses.
- mnky9800n 3y agoNot to mention new hazard mitigation due to climate change
- bluescrn 3y agoNu-cu-lar is scary. And it's much cheaper to just tell the working class they can't heat/cool their homes any more, the little people have just got to stop using energy...
- himinlomax 3y agoSolar panels are cheaper. They're also useless at night or in winter at higher latitude. The question is not whether it's expensive, the question is whether it's worth the price.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoNot sure about that. On paper, it looks like it. On practice, my mother pays 30€ a month of electricity in France, where nuclear energy is everywhere. She asked for a quote to get panels on her house, and they got back to her with 20000€. Sure you can move the needle by noting I drain way more power than her, than she heats her house using fossil fuel and that the quotes could be have been reduced in many ways. You can also note that solar panels have to be replaced several times, take much more space, don't have to including wiring in their ROI calculation (while nuclear does for some weird reason) and are created by electricity generated by fossil or nuclear fuel, so their building price is already cheap. I wouldn't say the answer is that clear cut.
- cinntaile 3y agoWhat do you mean wiring isn't included? How is a quote not the total price, including labour and material costs?
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoI mean that in France, the reports assessing the cost of the energy produced by wind turbines and solar panels don't include the wiring from the source of energy to where the energy is distributed. Which is logical. For some reason I don't know, nuclear reactors cost evaluation must include the wiring.
- cinntaile 3y agoSince you kept talking about solar panels it was very unclear that you were no longer talking about the quote your mom got.
- shakow 3y agoAnd that's with the ARENH screwing the French people w.r.t. the actual production price of EDF (mostly) nuclear energy.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoRenewables != solar. Renewables = a mix of solar, wind, hydro, geo, and wave, backed up by storage and a more efficient grid, supplement by various local - down to household - generation options. Supported by smarter and larger grids. The absolute criminality of the last few decades means that renewable tech is decades behind where it could have been with a no-compromise crash development program starting in the 90s. The real problem with renewable has always been political. Renewables are inherently diverse and distributed. They're not limited to a very small number of critical supply chains and economic choke points. And some people are really unhappy about that.
- willis936 3y agoRenewables are popular with most demos. What's even more popular is low LCOE. The technical challenges of energy storage can be hand waved away, but not if you want to actually solve the problems.
- Dah00n 3y ago>The technical challenges of <snip> storage can be hand waved away, but not if you want to actually solve the problems. Now it fits nuclear too.
- pfdietz 3y agoWe're close to, or even at, the point where hydrogen made with solar, then burned in combined cycle power plants, produces power more cheaply than nuclear. Of course, in a renewable energy system, only a fraction of the energy has to go through hydrogen; much will be consumed directly from the grid (or through short term storage.)
- marsven_422 3y ago[dead]
- jvanderbot 3y agoI would recommend reading the article. The paper they discussing projects .003 USD per kilowatt hour.
- LatteLazy 3y agoThe minute someone builds one and has the receipts and waste disposal set up, I am all ears. Really. But every generation of nuclear plant has promised "power too cheap to meter". The last 3 generations all failed to deliver (and have been ruinously expensive). Gen 4 isn't expected to start commercial operations until 2035 I think? This is my key objection to nuclear: I feel it cannot even be assessed because people insist on talking in theory. And with tech as complex and power dense etc as this tech, theory is never even close to reality. I am open to some of the SME concepts (mass manufacturing, large numbers of small units) because they seem to deal with at least some of the economic issues nuclear has. But I cant help feeling nuclear fission is as far from an economically viable, reproducible, sustainable product as fusion is. I actually think that being small, simple, short term, politically unimportant with commodity parts is to other renewables (wind, solar etc) what reliability is for nuclear.
- jvanderbot 3y ago> The minute someone builds one and has the receipts and waste disposal set up, I am all ears. Really. > This is my key objection to nuclear: I feel it cannot even be assessed because people insist on talking in theory. And with tech as complex and power dense etc as this tech, theory is never even close to reality. > But I cant help feeling nuclear fission is as far from an economically viable, reproducible, sustainable product as fusion is. I don't think we're operating from the same base set of facts. Fission is a reality now. Entire countries rely on it for their entire grid, safely and reliably. TFA was just saying everyone could, and I agree. It's not a transition of kind, but of degree, which is much easier. This is not to say solar and wind have to place (which triggers a different kind of antibodies), just that fission does too.
- pfdietz 3y ago