3 ms·

nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper. It's just harder to scale If the waste is your concern - nuclear is better. And no, you can't just bury renewa

nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper. It's just harder to scale If the waste is your concern - nuclear is better. And no, you can't just bury renewable waste, it too contains forever toxic materials that can be dispersed in soil and water. Amount of mined stuff- nuclear is better, amount of land used- nuclear is better No matter how you turn it, renewables were and will be more expensive for germany https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-spread-costs-adding-more-renewable-power-energy-grid-2024-08-30/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-rejigs-sprea...

natmaka 2y ago
> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment
  - natmaka 2y ago
    'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ). Last but not least... there is no running project. Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else. As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me. > why they assume 4h storage? AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). > What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes. > overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...). > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      you sure it neglects vogtle? > AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs > AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies > This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ). This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less

natmaka 2y ago

> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

Moldoteck 2y ago
it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of it could be covered with wind but it'll still be a lot. What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? Needless to say that this overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time when most of day consumption will be covered, storage too - if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies for companies to build more of the stuff to get back their investment
- natmaka 2y ago
  'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant#Units_3_and_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-nuclear-reactor-plant-in-the-us-has-been-canceled/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ). Last but not least... there is no running project. Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else. As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me. > why they assume 4h storage? AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). > What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low? AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes. > overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...). > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    you sure it neglects vogtle? > AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs > AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation > if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies > This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ). This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less