3 ms·

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and divers

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. If we as a society want someone to build nuclear plants in the near term, for grid-stability reasons, we're probably going to have to subsidize the project.

sofixa 3y ago
Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  It is run by those people but cost matters in a capitalist society, so you have to consider it alongside the actual engineering numbers. If you want socialism for energy, we can have that, but I’ll tell you now that the government will spend way more to operate a nuclear plant than it’s going to be worth. Look at navy nuclear stuff, it’s so dang expensive.
realusername 3y ago
> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.
  - realusername 3y ago
    That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      You think the price of nuclear in France includes the environmental damage caused by the gas plants they use to balance the grid? Where did you get this idea from?
      - realusername 3y ago
        The French gas plants got built to smooth out renewables, there's only a single gas plant built before 2010 and it wasn't even connected to the pipelines, it was a factory gas reuse. I do think it was an environmental and diplomatic (as seen now in the Russian war) mistake.
nocoiner 3y ago
The costs of a reliable grid and sufficiently dispatchable electricity are gonna get paid one way or another if the grid customers expect that level of service. There are lots of ways those costs can be allocated - from user fees in deregulated markets or from ratepayers in vertically integrated systems, and probably a million permutations in between - but those costs are there and someone’s gonna pay them. A long-life highly available nuke plant at 3x the cost of nameplate renewable production doesn’t seem like much more than an immaterial cost difference at the end of the day.

sofixa 3y ago

Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.

ok_dad 3y ago
It is run by those people but cost matters in a capitalist society, so you have to consider it alongside the actual engineering numbers. If you want socialism for energy, we can have that, but I’ll tell you now that the government will spend way more to operate a nuclear plant than it’s going to be worth. Look at navy nuclear stuff, it’s so dang expensive.

realusername 3y ago

> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.
- realusername 3y ago
  That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    You think the price of nuclear in France includes the environmental damage caused by the gas plants they use to balance the grid? Where did you get this idea from?
    - realusername 3y ago
      The French gas plants got built to smooth out renewables, there's only a single gas plant built before 2010 and it wasn't even connected to the pipelines, it was a factory gas reuse. I do think it was an environmental and diplomatic (as seen now in the Russian war) mistake.

nocoiner 3y ago

The costs of a reliable grid and sufficiently dispatchable electricity are gonna get paid one way or another if the grid customers expect that level of service. There are lots of ways those costs can be allocated - from user fees in deregulated markets or from ratepayers in vertically integrated systems, and probably a million permutations in between - but those costs are there and someone’s gonna pay them. A long-life highly available nuke plant at 3x the cost of nameplate renewable production doesn’t seem like much more than an immaterial cost difference at the end of the day.