2 ms·

I am a nuclear fanboy not because it promises technological breakthroughs (like you wrote, there probably won't be many or even any), but because there just isn

I am a nuclear fanboy not because it promises technological breakthroughs (like you wrote, there probably won't be many or even any), but because there just isn't any other option that can deliver continuous power without messing up the climate. I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. I am an even bigger fan of solar power, but are we really going to have enough battery capacity to reliably run entire countries?

epistasis 1y ago
> I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. Vogtle is showing that to be wrong. It costs something like $180-$200/MWh, when market value is around $50/MWh on average. Solar with enough storage to operate as baseload is far cheaper than nuclear today, and will only get cheaper over the next decade. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches-facility-produce-1gw-uninterrupted-renewable-energy-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches...
- H8crilA 1y ago
  Okay, but now run the numbers not for a middle eastern desert but for say Germany, or similar latitudes/weather patterns in the US. ChatGPT roughly estimated the cost to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500/MWh.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. ChatGPT is an innumerate as contemporary nuclear advocates. I regularly run the numbers for the US, and using old NREL numbers it's $120/MWh. The US has great solar resources. Germany has some of the worst. But in any case most of the cost is in the battery, not the panels, which are cheap. So bump that up and it doesn't change the cost much. I'm any case, unless you are Finland or similar, nuclear is not on the table.
    - H8crilA 1y ago
      I see. Which part of the US? And the cost of the battery is included the price I gave. Battery is the main reason why it is so high.
AngryData 1y ago
Yeah I agree with you. Im not expecting any real improvements in my personal life by going to nuclear power, but it is all but a solved method to produce nearly any amount of power we would want over extremely long timespans with no significant emissions. You want to desalinate massive amounts of water? Nuke plant. You want to run a huge carbon scrubber farm? Nuke plant. You want endless amounts of steel and aluminum processing and fertilizer production that all require large amounts of energy? Nuclear power. And it doesn't need to rely on promises of future technology improvements or mega-structure scale projects like "Cover X entire state with solar panels and install multiple times the worlds current total battery capacity into the grid." Or waiting for the economics of solar panels to make it viable for all consumers and dealing with all the political shenanigans of connecting them to the grid.
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
”Baseload” solar is here. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...

epistasis 1y ago

> I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. Vogtle is showing that to be wrong. It costs something like $180-$200/MWh, when market value is around $50/MWh on average. Solar with enough storage to operate as baseload is far cheaper than nuclear today, and will only get cheaper over the next decade. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches-facility-produce-1gw-uninterrupted-renewable-energy-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches...

H8crilA 1y ago
Okay, but now run the numbers not for a middle eastern desert but for say Germany, or similar latitudes/weather patterns in the US. ChatGPT roughly estimated the cost to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500/MWh.
- epistasis 1y ago
  That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. ChatGPT is an innumerate as contemporary nuclear advocates. I regularly run the numbers for the US, and using old NREL numbers it's $120/MWh. The US has great solar resources. Germany has some of the worst. But in any case most of the cost is in the battery, not the panels, which are cheap. So bump that up and it doesn't change the cost much. I'm any case, unless you are Finland or similar, nuclear is not on the table.
  - H8crilA 1y ago
    I see. Which part of the US? And the cost of the battery is included the price I gave. Battery is the main reason why it is so high.

AngryData 1y ago

Yeah I agree with you. Im not expecting any real improvements in my personal life by going to nuclear power, but it is all but a solved method to produce nearly any amount of power we would want over extremely long timespans with no significant emissions. You want to desalinate massive amounts of water? Nuke plant. You want to run a huge carbon scrubber farm? Nuke plant. You want endless amounts of steel and aluminum processing and fertilizer production that all require large amounts of energy? Nuclear power. And it doesn't need to rely on promises of future technology improvements or mega-structure scale projects like "Cover X entire state with solar panels and install multiple times the worlds current total battery capacity into the grid." Or waiting for the economics of solar panels to make it viable for all consumers and dealing with all the political shenanigans of connecting them to the grid.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

”Baseload” solar is here. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...