3 ms·

>or base load power plant, like nuclear, will continue to have marketable "goods". Nuclear hasnt been marketable for a long time without massive indirect and d

by pydry 1y ago

>or base load power plant, like nuclear, will continue to have marketable "goods". Nuclear hasnt been marketable for a long time without massive indirect and direct subsidies. The reason it gets built in spite of its demand for lavish subsidies is because it shares a supply chain and skills base with the military industrial complex. Countries that have a nuclear military want to share some of the costs with the civilian sector although they typically arent up front about it, preferring to declare that it's because they're environmentalists. NPT signatories that dont have nuclear weapons but take a strong interest in building civilian nuclear power typically see some sort of potential existential risk on the horizon. Again, officially it's because theyre green hippies. In unrelated news, after decades of being by far the most coal addicted country in Europe: https://apnews.com/article/poland-us-nuclear-energy-power-plant-deal-6905023bc532240ec06baaa1c205e93c https://apnews.com/article/poland-us-nuclear-energy-power-pl...

rich_sasha 1y ago
My point is that immediate profitability (eg nuclear being expensive) is not the right metric. It matters and it's a part of the equation, but overall, it's a bit meaningless to say solar is more profitable to a capital investor than eg nuclear, therefore let's base a country's grid on solar power alone. Your link to Poland is one of my key counterexamples to a full renewables grid. Northern Europe absolutely sees long periods with little sunshine and wind, and that's also when its energy requirements are highest (winter heating). Much of it is flat, too, and seasonal battery storage exists nowhere right now. So... If not solar or wind or hydro, and want it to be low-CO2, then you're short on options. So exorcising nuclear seems a bad idea.
- pydry 1y ago
  I indirectly an anticipated a comment like yours when I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44143833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44143833 Intermittency is not "solved" with nuclear power. When French nuclear plants get shut down for months at a time for maintenance what happens? Lots and lots and lots of peaker gas. When you combine the extreme cost, the non negligible risks of it going boom and the fact its a horrible peaker (no substitute for gas), and its only slightly lower reliance on peakers it becomes apparent that it's a terrible deal. The reason why batteries and pumped storage and syngas arent popular is because they cant beat the economics of gas for peaking capacity. However, they can easily beat the economics of nuclear power+gas when combined with solar and wind. So yeah, exorcising nuclear seems like a pretty fantastic idea, for cost, environmental and pacifist reasons.
  - ftth_finland 1y ago
    > When French nuclear plants get shut down for months at a time for maintenance what happens? You reconsider your life choices and hire the Finnish to run your nuclear power plants instead. > The reason why batteries and pumped storage and syngas arent popular is because they cant beat the economics of gas for peaking capacity. It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage. Where are you going to put all that pumped storage? Where are you going to get all the batteries you need? Not that many batteries are produced compared to the world’s energy needs. The jury is still out on syngas. So far it’s expensive and inefficient. But it’s still early days. > the fact its a horrible peaker Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful. You run a nuclear power plant at full tilt, all the time. Then you divy up any excess demand to other sources of power. > So yeah, exorcising nuclear seems like a pretty fantastic idea, for cost, environmental and pacifist reasons. This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel and don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources.
    - pydry 1y ago
      >You reconsider your life choices and hire the Finnish to run your nuclear power plants instead. The French made Finnish plant or the Moscow made Finnish plant? It would be a cool party trick if Finland tried building its own nuclear power plants instead of just suing the French for cost overruns. >It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage The economics dont rule them out - not unless you treat the environment as disposable. They're much more cost effective when paired with solar and wind than nuclear power, they just dont get the subsidies. >Where are you going to put all that pumped storage? You might be confusing it with river dams for which the geography is actually scarce. There was actually a paper that identified a truly enormous number of potential sites globally for pumped storage. Google can easily find it for you if you have an ounce of curiosity about this. >Where are you going to get all the batteries you need? Make them? Did you think theyd fall out of the sky? >The jury is still out on syngas Syngas only makes economic sense once natural gas is banned/made cost prohibitive and solar+wind are regularly overproducing what can be otherwise stored or used. It'd still be cheaper to only use syngas made with solar and wind than to use nuclear energy just coz nuclear energy is that absurdly, fantastically, stupidly expensive. >Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful. You wouldnt it's even more economically hemmoraging than using it for baseload but some people think it's a substitute for natural gas because technically it can peak. Nuclear almost always pairs itself with natgas for peaking just like solar and wind currently do during dark, windless days. >This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel A) Not many do live up there and B) there is NO shortage of available wind and hydro power options up there. So I guess you admit it is a wonderful idea. Of all of your critiques this is the oddest. >don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources. Did you read the link I posted at the top? It was written before you responded to me but it was meant for you. The straw man I referred to in that post was the one you just made.

by pydry 1y ago

rich_sasha 1y ago

My point is that immediate profitability (eg nuclear being expensive) is not the right metric. It matters and it's a part of the equation, but overall, it's a bit meaningless to say solar is more profitable to a capital investor than eg nuclear, therefore let's base a country's grid on solar power alone. Your link to Poland is one of my key counterexamples to a full renewables grid. Northern Europe absolutely sees long periods with little sunshine and wind, and that's also when its energy requirements are highest (winter heating). Much of it is flat, too, and seasonal battery storage exists nowhere right now. So... If not solar or wind or hydro, and want it to be low-CO2, then you're short on options. So exorcising nuclear seems a bad idea.

pydry 1y ago
I indirectly an anticipated a comment like yours when I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44143833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44143833 Intermittency is not "solved" with nuclear power. When French nuclear plants get shut down for months at a time for maintenance what happens? Lots and lots and lots of peaker gas. When you combine the extreme cost, the non negligible risks of it going boom and the fact its a horrible peaker (no substitute for gas), and its only slightly lower reliance on peakers it becomes apparent that it's a terrible deal. The reason why batteries and pumped storage and syngas arent popular is because they cant beat the economics of gas for peaking capacity. However, they can easily beat the economics of nuclear power+gas when combined with solar and wind. So yeah, exorcising nuclear seems like a pretty fantastic idea, for cost, environmental and pacifist reasons.
- ftth_finland 1y ago
  > When French nuclear plants get shut down for months at a time for maintenance what happens? You reconsider your life choices and hire the Finnish to run your nuclear power plants instead. > The reason why batteries and pumped storage and syngas arent popular is because they cant beat the economics of gas for peaking capacity. It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage. Where are you going to put all that pumped storage? Where are you going to get all the batteries you need? Not that many batteries are produced compared to the world’s energy needs. The jury is still out on syngas. So far it’s expensive and inefficient. But it’s still early days. > the fact its a horrible peaker Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful. You run a nuclear power plant at full tilt, all the time. Then you divy up any excess demand to other sources of power. > So yeah, exorcising nuclear seems like a pretty fantastic idea, for cost, environmental and pacifist reasons. This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel and don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources.
  - pydry 1y ago
    >You reconsider your life choices and hire the Finnish to run your nuclear power plants instead. The French made Finnish plant or the Moscow made Finnish plant? It would be a cool party trick if Finland tried building its own nuclear power plants instead of just suing the French for cost overruns. >It’s not even just the economics that rule out batteries and pumped storage The economics dont rule them out - not unless you treat the environment as disposable. They're much more cost effective when paired with solar and wind than nuclear power, they just dont get the subsidies. >Where are you going to put all that pumped storage? You might be confusing it with river dams for which the geography is actually scarce. There was actually a paper that identified a truly enormous number of potential sites globally for pumped storage. Google can easily find it for you if you have an ounce of curiosity about this. >Where are you going to get all the batteries you need? Make them? Did you think theyd fall out of the sky? >The jury is still out on syngas Syngas only makes economic sense once natural gas is banned/made cost prohibitive and solar+wind are regularly overproducing what can be otherwise stored or used. It'd still be cheaper to only use syngas made with solar and wind than to use nuclear energy just coz nuclear energy is that absurdly, fantastically, stupidly expensive. >Why on earth would you run a nuclear power plant as a peaker? That’s inefficient and wasteful. You wouldnt it's even more economically hemmoraging than using it for baseload but some people think it's a substitute for natural gas because technically it can peak. Nuclear almost always pairs itself with natgas for peaking just like solar and wind currently do during dark, windless days. >This seems to be a wonderful idea, as long as you assume nobody lives above the 60th parallel A) Not many do live up there and B) there is NO shortage of available wind and hydro power options up there. So I guess you admit it is a wonderful idea. Of all of your critiques this is the oddest. >don’t mind on relying on CO2 producing power sources. Did you read the link I posted at the top? It was written before you responded to me but it was meant for you. The straw man I referred to in that post was the one you just made.