3 ms·

The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human ene

The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human energy consumers need energy with a fixed rate and all physical metrics withing a tight margin. To prouduce that with only solar energy is impossible. This means you have to build other energy sources into the grid like gas turbines to be able to control the grid. So if you really want to compare energy prices than you have to look into the TCO. https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trends_of_wind_and_solar_vs_nuclear_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trend...

jacobp100 2y ago
Solar + batteries is still cheaper than nuclear
- datadeft 2y ago
  In what timeframe? Solar panels last 20-25 years. Nuclear power plants last for 50+ years and use fraction of the space that solar. It is hard to believe that the TCO is lower. Usually people just looking at the price in the short term and comparing that. Batteries are a whole different can of worms. Super toxic and you need a high volume of those because the energy density is much lower. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Space isn't really an issue. There's many places that are no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides. Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated. And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
    - troupo 2y ago
      > no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides. And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance? > Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources? > And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive. Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?
      - lukan 2y ago
        Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper, than maintaining a nuclear reactor and disposing safely the waste. Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.
        troupo 2y ago
        See how you decided to completely ignore my question. But I like that on top of that, batteries are not cheap either
        lukan 2y ago
        See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want? Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.
        troupo 2y ago
        > See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want? It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it
        lukan 2y ago
        It is a common trait of internet commentators, who are not paid for your education. "And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?" Why should I feel it as my duty to answer that specific question to you? Seriously curious.
  - notTooFarGone 2y ago
    and in 0-10 years solar make infinitely more power than a nuclear plant.
    - datadeft 2y ago
      Absolutely. And we can finally infent FTL and fly back in time to stop nuclear to begin with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - jacobp100 2y ago
    In the timeframe of the duration of the installation. (Total cost for the whole project + total costs for fuels & maintainance) / (kW generated * lifetime of the project)
    - datadeft 2y ago
      Again, comparing apples to oranges. If 50 years we need to build a single nuclear plant while you have to build twice the solar capacity I doubt that solar come out cheaper.
      - jacobp100 2y ago
        It literally does come out cheaper. It’s referred to as the LCOE - you can look at the data yourself
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    The lifetime difference is a standard talking point that sounds good if you don't understand economics but doesn't make a significant difference. It's the latest attempt to avoid having to acknowledge the completely bizarre costs of new nuclear built power through bad math. CSIRO with GenCost included it in this year's report. Because capital loses so much value over 80 years ("60 years + construction time) the only people who refer to the potential lifespan are people who don't understand economics. In this, we of course forget that the average nuclear power plant was in operation for 26 years before it closed. Table 2.1: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co... The difference a completely absurd lifespan makes is a 10% cost reduction. When each plant requires tens of billions in subsidies a 10% cost reduction is still... tens of billions in subsidies.

jacobp100 2y ago

Solar + batteries is still cheaper than nuclear

datadeft 2y ago
In what timeframe? Solar panels last 20-25 years. Nuclear power plants last for 50+ years and use fraction of the space that solar. It is hard to believe that the TCO is lower. Usually people just looking at the price in the short term and comparing that. Batteries are a whole different can of worms. Super toxic and you need a high volume of those because the energy density is much lower. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density
- wkat4242 2y ago
  Space isn't really an issue. There's many places that are no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides. Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated. And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
  - troupo 2y ago
    > no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides. And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance? > Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources? > And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive. Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?
    - lukan 2y ago
      Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper, than maintaining a nuclear reactor and disposing safely the waste. Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.
      - troupo 2y ago
        See how you decided to completely ignore my question. But I like that on top of that, batteries are not cheap either
        lukan 2y ago
        See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want? Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.
        troupo 2y ago
        > See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want? It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it
        lukan 2y ago
        It is a common trait of internet commentators, who are not paid for your education. "And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?" Why should I feel it as my duty to answer that specific question to you? Seriously curious.
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  and in 0-10 years solar make infinitely more power than a nuclear plant.
  - datadeft 2y ago
    Absolutely. And we can finally infent FTL and fly back in time to stop nuclear to begin with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- jacobp100 2y ago
  In the timeframe of the duration of the installation. (Total cost for the whole project + total costs for fuels & maintainance) / (kW generated * lifetime of the project)
  - datadeft 2y ago
    Again, comparing apples to oranges. If 50 years we need to build a single nuclear plant while you have to build twice the solar capacity I doubt that solar come out cheaper.
    - jacobp100 2y ago
      It literally does come out cheaper. It’s referred to as the LCOE - you can look at the data yourself
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  The lifetime difference is a standard talking point that sounds good if you don't understand economics but doesn't make a significant difference. It's the latest attempt to avoid having to acknowledge the completely bizarre costs of new nuclear built power through bad math. CSIRO with GenCost included it in this year's report. Because capital loses so much value over 80 years ("60 years + construction time) the only people who refer to the potential lifespan are people who don't understand economics. In this, we of course forget that the average nuclear power plant was in operation for 26 years before it closed. Table 2.1: https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co... The difference a completely absurd lifespan makes is a 10% cost reduction. When each plant requires tens of billions in subsidies a 10% cost reduction is still... tens of billions in subsidies.