5 ms·

> Sure, it might cost more I think this is more than good enough to be the "straight answer" you're looking for all on its own (& it's definitely not a case of

> Sure, it might cost more I think this is more than good enough to be the "straight answer" you're looking for all on its own (& it's definitely not a case of "it might" - it definitely will). However, on top of the cost, there's three additional reasons: 2. It will take longer 3. It will need to be geographically distributed to an extent that will incur a significantly broader variety of local logistical red tape & hurdles 4. One of the largest components that will cost more is grid balancing energy storage, which is not only a cost & logistical difficulty, but also an ongoing research area needing significant r&d investment as well. Given all those comparators, it's a testament to the taboo that's been built up around nuclear that we have in fact been pursuing your "all renewable" suggestion anyway.

marcosdumay 1y ago
> It will take longer Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from? Anyway, about #4, nuclear can't economically work in a grid with renewables without batteries. With renewables, you can always temporarily switch to a more expensive generator when they go out, but anything intermittent that competes with nuclear will bankrupt it.
- lucideer 1y ago
  > economically When we're talking about societal public investment - even investment in the private sector - capital cost is a much more constrained consideration than anything related to abstract market "competitiveness". The latter does not influence the former in real terms (only in argumentative policy terms, which are unfortunately more impactful than they should be). > Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from? Longer than nuclear to do what? I was replying to the above commenter who said the following: > in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables TTL for individual nuclear is obviously always much longer than for renewables but time to any arbitrary large generation goal is almost certainly shorter for nuclear (barring taboo).
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    > time to any arbitrary large generation goal China is proving this to be objective false. Their total energy production (not nameplate power) for wind/solar/hydro is growing substantially faster than their nuclear output.
- m101 1y ago
  Nuclear is baseload which is why it always runs. Gas peakers is what you turn on and off.
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    All around Europe nuclear plants are forced off the markets because the electricity prices are for weeks lower than their wear and tear and fuel costs. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a battery buy extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity from the grid when they can make their own? ”Baseload” is a title earned by having the lowest marginal costs. There is nothing fundamental about it. Today renewables have the cheapest marginal cost at 0. They are the new ”baseload”.
    - m101 1y ago
      This is not true. I assume you are talking about the french nuclear reactors and their abysmal capacity factors? The reason for the french case is that they were required to reduce output to allow more space for other new energy generation types. Fortunately the French have realised the error of their ways.
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        I would suggest some curiosity when approaching this topic. Here's a reactor in Sweden which went offline for ~2 weeks citing market conditions. At the same time as another reactor at the same plant had a 7 month extended outage. https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarnas-begaran/4299500 https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarna... During the infamous Iberian blackout the nuclear output was at ~45%. One reactor was offline for maintenance, the rest had voluntarily reduced their output citing market conditions. You did not answer my question. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy extremely expensive grid based nuclear electricity to prop up the reactors capex when their own installations delivers vastly cheaper electricity?
        m101 1y ago
GoatInGrey 1y ago
You're wasting your energy on that user, I suspect. > No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts ...is commonly a rhetorical pattern meaning "I've predetermined my conclusion, but I want to save face by appearing rational and casting those I disagree with as biased or incompetent in one fell swoop." It's the "Aren't there any REAL men anymore?" of contentious topics.
- jama211 1y ago
  No? I’m genuinely curious I just was frustrated by not having my questions answered properly. Most people in this thread have been very helpful. This isn’t reddit, don’t read so deeply into my motivations here.

marcosdumay 1y ago

> It will take longer Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from? Anyway, about #4, nuclear can't economically work in a grid with renewables without batteries. With renewables, you can always temporarily switch to a more expensive generator when they go out, but anything intermittent that competes with nuclear will bankrupt it.

lucideer 1y ago
> economically When we're talking about societal public investment - even investment in the private sector - capital cost is a much more constrained consideration than anything related to abstract market "competitiveness". The latter does not influence the former in real terms (only in argumentative policy terms, which are unfortunately more impactful than they should be). > Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from? Longer than nuclear to do what? I was replying to the above commenter who said the following: > in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables TTL for individual nuclear is obviously always much longer than for renewables but time to any arbitrary large generation goal is almost certainly shorter for nuclear (barring taboo).
- _aavaa_ 1y ago
  > time to any arbitrary large generation goal China is proving this to be objective false. Their total energy production (not nameplate power) for wind/solar/hydro is growing substantially faster than their nuclear output.
m101 1y ago
Nuclear is baseload which is why it always runs. Gas peakers is what you turn on and off.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  All around Europe nuclear plants are forced off the markets because the electricity prices are for weeks lower than their wear and tear and fuel costs. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a battery buy extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity from the grid when they can make their own? ”Baseload” is a title earned by having the lowest marginal costs. There is nothing fundamental about it. Today renewables have the cheapest marginal cost at 0. They are the new ”baseload”.
  - m101 1y ago
    This is not true. I assume you are talking about the french nuclear reactors and their abysmal capacity factors? The reason for the french case is that they were required to reduce output to allow more space for other new energy generation types. Fortunately the French have realised the error of their ways.
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      I would suggest some curiosity when approaching this topic. Here's a reactor in Sweden which went offline for ~2 weeks citing market conditions. At the same time as another reactor at the same plant had a 7 month extended outage. https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarnas-begaran/4299500 https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarna... During the infamous Iberian blackout the nuclear output was at ~45%. One reactor was offline for maintenance, the rest had voluntarily reduced their output citing market conditions. You did not answer my question. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy extremely expensive grid based nuclear electricity to prop up the reactors capex when their own installations delivers vastly cheaper electricity?
      - m101 1y ago

GoatInGrey 1y ago

You're wasting your energy on that user, I suspect. > No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts ...is commonly a rhetorical pattern meaning "I've predetermined my conclusion, but I want to save face by appearing rational and casting those I disagree with as biased or incompetent in one fell swoop." It's the "Aren't there any REAL men anymore?" of contentious topics.

jama211 1y ago
No? I’m genuinely curious I just was frustrated by not having my questions answered properly. Most people in this thread have been very helpful. This isn’t reddit, don’t read so deeply into my motivations here.