3 ms·

Basically everything in comment is factually wrong so... Edit: Nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar, based on auction prices for projects since 2017

by hef19898 3y ago

Basically everything in comment is factually wrong so... Edit: Nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar, based on auction prices for projects since 2017 (?). Nuclear net capacity gains are miniscule for decades now, and will for decades. Most new reactors replace old obes. At the same time glovally more wind and solar capacity is installed in a month than nuclear in more than a year (look up the numbers for yourself). Anti-nuclear movements were a result from Chernobyl, and they were, violently at times, oppossed by govenrments. The reason why not more goes into juclear projects is easy: the ROI is too low.

vlovich123 3y ago
Nuclear is not more expensive once you factor in storage as that’s required for wind/solar to compete on an even field. Nuclear would also get cheaper if we built more of it.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Nice talking points. And they work, if you ignore realities around nuclear built out or assume the low numbers are due to some kind of conspiracy. And storage, well, you'd be surprise how much storage you actually need in modern grids. The prices I refer to so, are real world costs and feed prices for real world projects. Unless you believe people calculating those professionally don't know what they do, I hope we can agree that the are correct and can serve as valid basis for comparisons and discusion.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Please show me a single wind/solar installation that has storage priced in. These projects are being priced without storage nor are any that I’m aware of being constructed to supply baseload power precisely because grid scale storage for intermittent renewables is expensive and unsolved. So no, I don’t agree that evaluating the price of non-baseload power projects tells us anything about the costs involved with baseload power plants.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      That's the point: they don't need storage. If you believe that, read up on electricity generation and grid balancing, beyond popular talking points.
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        Let me know of a place without baseload generation / with it replaced by renewables. These are interesting claims to make but there’s no existence proof. Almost every place that goes all in on renewables inevitably uses fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro to backfill the baseload demand (and usually fossil fuels since nuclear has very few projects and hydro is very regional and maxed out wherever practical).

vlovich123 3y ago

Nuclear is not more expensive once you factor in storage as that’s required for wind/solar to compete on an even field. Nuclear would also get cheaper if we built more of it.

hef19898 3y ago
Nice talking points. And they work, if you ignore realities around nuclear built out or assume the low numbers are due to some kind of conspiracy. And storage, well, you'd be surprise how much storage you actually need in modern grids. The prices I refer to so, are real world costs and feed prices for real world projects. Unless you believe people calculating those professionally don't know what they do, I hope we can agree that the are correct and can serve as valid basis for comparisons and discusion.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Please show me a single wind/solar installation that has storage priced in. These projects are being priced without storage nor are any that I’m aware of being constructed to supply baseload power precisely because grid scale storage for intermittent renewables is expensive and unsolved. So no, I don’t agree that evaluating the price of non-baseload power projects tells us anything about the costs involved with baseload power plants.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That's the point: they don't need storage. If you believe that, read up on electricity generation and grid balancing, beyond popular talking points.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      Let me know of a place without baseload generation / with it replaced by renewables. These are interesting claims to make but there’s no existence proof. Almost every place that goes all in on renewables inevitably uses fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro to backfill the baseload demand (and usually fossil fuels since nuclear has very few projects and hydro is very regional and maxed out wherever practical).