4 ms·

Is it really the case that running an existing nuclear powerplant is less cost-effective than the alternatives, so much so that closing plants is a good idea fr

by _flux 3y ago

Is it really the case that running an existing nuclear powerplant is less cost-effective than the alternatives, so much so that closing plants is a good idea from green energy point of view?

KingOfCoders 3y ago
The minimal costs of operating nuclear are around the same as the investment costs of solar parks, around $30/Mwh (building nuclear power plants is around $200/Mwh). For example a nuclear power plant has employed 700 people. A solarpark does not need a lot of FTE employees to operate (+ low maintanance). That does not include waste deposit costs for hundreds of years and real insurance costs without subsidies by tax payers.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  That's no excuse for shutting them down and burning coal. They should be kept online until firmed renewables have completely displaced fossil fuels and only then be shut down.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    ([Edit] I would also not shut them down it I wasn't clear on this) There is also no excuse for gasoline powered cars. But gasoline powered cars are the majority of sales. Or diesel powered trains, which are the majority of trains in the US. Or eating meat. Or flying in planes. The US is burning more coal than Germany, and probably should build more nuclear plants to replace burning coal. But the US doesn't. People do whatever they like, not things they should do.
    - hajile 3y ago
      The US is also much larger than Germany and is in the process of building more nuclear plants. If you care about the environment, nuclear is the only sustainable option at the moment. The plant costs have a very long time to recoup. Lots of plants built in the 80s seem perfectly capable of going until at least the 2050s without any danger and have requested license renewals to do exactly that. Each additional year further drives down the total cost of ownership. I'll also note that people stupidly think only in terms of CO2. The truth is that a lot of the "forever" chemicals used in tho construction of wind an solar (along with loads of other toxic sludge) pose a much higher risk to the planet. If life on the planet starts getting killed off by the chemicals we spread everywhere, the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. We'll last way longer fighting CO2 than we will against the dangerous chemicals we're pumping out.
      - hackerlight 3y ago
        > the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. There are dense locations near the equator where the wetbulb temperature has gone over 34-35 degrees celcius, which is higher than is survivable by healthy adults for more than a small handful of hours. These extreme events will keep getting worse, leading to heat stress, prolonged school closures, etc. Not all of these people have access to air conditioning because we're talking about countries with less than $6k GDP per capita. Eventually this will drive climate refugees.
        hajile 3y ago
        "Where did all the bugs go?" is a serious question representing a serious and potentially life-ending problem caused by the many chemicals we're pumping out. A few million climate migrants are insignificant in comparison to the loss of the lower layers of the ecosystem that cascade upward into mass die-offs though ironically, that would make the manmade CO2 issue go away...
      - KingOfCoders 3y ago
        Sure the US is larger, but climate doesn't care if a ton of CO2 is produced by a small or a large country.
        hajile 3y ago
        You have any per-capita numbers? How about per-square-kilometers?
        KingOfCoders 3y ago
        Per capita electric power usage is twice as high in the US as in Germany. Per capita CO2 emission is twice as high in the US as in Germany. (depends on people of course, I never owned a car and I never bought electricity from coal plants, my parents did and I moved out when I was 18) "How about per-square-kilometers?" Not sure what that metric would be useful for? Can you give me an idea? I would be interested in the metric "sum ton CO2 per capita" from 1945 to 2024 (Or 1871 when Germany was founded, or 1949 when Germany got its constitution)?
- _flux 3y ago
  And how much do you need to invest to get that energy also during the nights, in a green-energy-compliant manner? Arguably it seems it's a good idea to run nuclear power, if it's not more costly than solar, provides 24/7 green energy, and also jobs.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    "if it's not more costly than solar" As I wrote, its not as costly but more expensive than solar. Currently tax payers are subsidizing nuclear with billions of Euros. Most energy is needed during the day time. Energy usage has been leveled across the day due to the demand of big power plants in the 50s and 60s, as they produce energy in the night and companies wanted to sell that, so society had to adapt. Not sure where you are based, in Germany wind blows at night.

by _flux 3y ago

Is it really the case that running an existing nuclear powerplant is less cost-effective than the alternatives, so much so that closing plants is a good idea from green energy point of view?

KingOfCoders 3y ago

The minimal costs of operating nuclear are around the same as the investment costs of solar parks, around $30/Mwh (building nuclear power plants is around $200/Mwh). For example a nuclear power plant has employed 700 people. A solarpark does not need a lot of FTE employees to operate (+ low maintanance). That does not include waste deposit costs for hundreds of years and real insurance costs without subsidies by tax payers.

hackerlight 3y ago
That's no excuse for shutting them down and burning coal. They should be kept online until firmed renewables have completely displaced fossil fuels and only then be shut down.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  ([Edit] I would also not shut them down it I wasn't clear on this) There is also no excuse for gasoline powered cars. But gasoline powered cars are the majority of sales. Or diesel powered trains, which are the majority of trains in the US. Or eating meat. Or flying in planes. The US is burning more coal than Germany, and probably should build more nuclear plants to replace burning coal. But the US doesn't. People do whatever they like, not things they should do.
  - hajile 3y ago
    The US is also much larger than Germany and is in the process of building more nuclear plants. If you care about the environment, nuclear is the only sustainable option at the moment. The plant costs have a very long time to recoup. Lots of plants built in the 80s seem perfectly capable of going until at least the 2050s without any danger and have requested license renewals to do exactly that. Each additional year further drives down the total cost of ownership. I'll also note that people stupidly think only in terms of CO2. The truth is that a lot of the "forever" chemicals used in tho construction of wind an solar (along with loads of other toxic sludge) pose a much higher risk to the planet. If life on the planet starts getting killed off by the chemicals we spread everywhere, the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. We'll last way longer fighting CO2 than we will against the dangerous chemicals we're pumping out.
    - hackerlight 3y ago
      > the temperature increases in a few hundred years don't matter in the slightest. There are dense locations near the equator where the wetbulb temperature has gone over 34-35 degrees celcius, which is higher than is survivable by healthy adults for more than a small handful of hours. These extreme events will keep getting worse, leading to heat stress, prolonged school closures, etc. Not all of these people have access to air conditioning because we're talking about countries with less than $6k GDP per capita. Eventually this will drive climate refugees.
      - hajile 3y ago
        "Where did all the bugs go?" is a serious question representing a serious and potentially life-ending problem caused by the many chemicals we're pumping out. A few million climate migrants are insignificant in comparison to the loss of the lower layers of the ecosystem that cascade upward into mass die-offs though ironically, that would make the manmade CO2 issue go away...
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      Sure the US is larger, but climate doesn't care if a ton of CO2 is produced by a small or a large country.
      - hajile 3y ago
        You have any per-capita numbers? How about per-square-kilometers?
        KingOfCoders 3y ago
        Per capita electric power usage is twice as high in the US as in Germany. Per capita CO2 emission is twice as high in the US as in Germany. (depends on people of course, I never owned a car and I never bought electricity from coal plants, my parents did and I moved out when I was 18) "How about per-square-kilometers?" Not sure what that metric would be useful for? Can you give me an idea? I would be interested in the metric "sum ton CO2 per capita" from 1945 to 2024 (Or 1871 when Germany was founded, or 1949 when Germany got its constitution)?
_flux 3y ago
And how much do you need to invest to get that energy also during the nights, in a green-energy-compliant manner? Arguably it seems it's a good idea to run nuclear power, if it's not more costly than solar, provides 24/7 green energy, and also jobs.
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  "if it's not more costly than solar" As I wrote, its not as costly but more expensive than solar. Currently tax payers are subsidizing nuclear with billions of Euros. Most energy is needed during the day time. Energy usage has been leveled across the day due to the demand of big power plants in the 50s and 60s, as they produce energy in the night and companies wanted to sell that, so society had to adapt. Not sure where you are based, in Germany wind blows at night.