5 ms·

Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable

by tfourb 7mo ago

Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark, which also has excellent links to reliable hydropower from Norway and Sweden? Especially when your greatest external security threat is Russia which has openly threatened targeting nuclear reactors of a country they are trying to invade? Not to speak of the inconvenient fact that Uranium is not a resource found in sufficient quantity in Europe and current European nuclear reactors get their fuel from Russia and Niger, not exactly reliable havens of stability. Nuclear power makes certain sense for nations that want a military nuclear arsenal and are willing to subsidize nuclear reactors to retain the required workforce and research base. For everyone else it is a money sink and a complication when designing their grid for renewable energy.

coldtea 7mo ago
>Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh Because the related lobby pays well and a huge power station project (which runs well into the tens of billions) has much larger space for bribes
- crimsoneer 7mo ago
  Alternatively, because nuclear power still works at night.
  - coldtea 7mo ago
    If only we had some way to store energy
    - mrmlz 7mo ago
      At scale.
      - tfourb 7mo ago
        You mean like 27 Gwh of yearly installed capacity kind of scale? https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-eu-installs-27-1-g-wh-of-new-batteries-in-2025-as-utility-scale-storage-drives-record-growth https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-e...
        Jensson 7mo ago
        Nice, that gets us enough battery to survive winters in 10 000 years.
        defrost 7mo ago
        Now linearly extropolate oil supply numbers from just prior to Ford's Model-T. How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
        Jensson 7mo ago
        That is why we need to stop with oil quickly, yes. Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there yet when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
        defrost 7mo ago
        No, that is why you made a gross error extrapolating grid battery growth. > when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today. Peak oil is a way off yet, and the reason we need to stop using sequestered carbon is because atmospheric insulation is increasing steadily as a direct result of fossil fuel usage. Not because of ground supply shortfall. The current events highlight the supply chain issue - not a shortage of oil, it's a shortfall in "oil going anywhere". > Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there Again, country by country - nuclear makes sense in China, the US to a degree, France, the UK (despite the snails progress) to a degree ... but makes no sense in, say, Australia that has abundant sunlight, fresh air that moves, and near zero prior experience with nuclear power and plant construction (See: the very recent Australian CSIRO report on energy futures for Australia)
mrmlz 7mo ago
As a Swede i'd like to cut the cord to Denmark/Germany. That would greatly reduce our electricity costs in south/mid Sweden. Let them enjoy their "cheap" wind and battery solution.
- tfourb 7mo ago
  You export more to Norway + Finnland than to Denmark + Germany: https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/energy/energy-supply-and-use/monthly-electricity-statistics-including-switches-of-electricity-supplier/pong/tables-and-graphs/monthly-import-and-export-of-electricity/ https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje... And my guess would be that it would be much more expensive for you to build out (and hold in reserve) enough generation capacity to satisfy your theoretical peak demand than it costs to have interconnected grids and a large efficient market, even if you are a net exporter.
  - mrmlz 7mo ago
    You are aware of our different price-markets in sweden right? SE4 is priced at the export prices for Danish wind and German goal - which sucks for Swedes in SE4 (and to some extent SE3). SE4 can eat their own dogfood since they cut the Nuclear Power and are now burning oil instead (Karlshamnsverket).
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 7mo ago
>Why would you I am unfortunately not the one empowered to make these decisions, nor do I know the reasoning of those who are, I just noted it seems back on the table based on discussions, maybe because >Nuclear power makes certain sense for nations that want a military nuclear arsenal and are willing to subsidize nuclear reactors since also on the table seems to be making a deal with France for Nuclear Weapons access, as I understand what I read.
dncornholio 7mo ago
Wind + Battery doesn't exist. Wind and solar renewables are dependent on natural gas plants at this moment. This is why nuclear is still a consideration, it's more "green" then most "green" energy.
- toraway 7mo ago
  By that definition, nuclear is also “dependent on natural gas” because it’s a baseload power source that can’t dynamically follow demand.
- tfourb 7mo ago
  Wind and solar are not "dependent" on natural gas plants. You can observe this quite well by simply building a wind or solar plant, connect a battery and a load. It works and it works well. Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When renewable generation is not sufficient, the difference is made up with generation from fossil-fueled thermal plants. But the existence of thermal power plants shouldn't be confused with any form of technical reliance on them. 100% renewable grids are inherently possible. If only, because you can simply enlarge grids geographically to the point that wind and solar production averages out. In combination with planned overcapacity (you can simply "switch off" wind and solar if you don't need generation), you strictly speaking don't even need batteries. It's just much more economical.
  - modo_mario 7mo ago
    >Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When will it make sense for many countries? Because the difference between peak production and a winter dip for germany in let's say Berlin is enormous.
    - tfourb 7mo ago
      First of all there is no alternative that makes sense. Climate change is real and its consequences are more expensive and catastrophic than any trade-offs we’ll have to make for a 100% renewable grid. The good news is that going 100% renewable is probably less onerous than most people expect. If we get our act together politically, we can easily build the grids, generation, storage and intelligent loads required. With the exception of a few industrial processes, the technology is already existing and economically viable, but it also gets better and cheaper every year. I never get why people are so opposed to renewables. In the past (and apparently present), we have spent multiples of what we’d need for 100% renewables on stupid wars. Now we could transform our economy with dramatic positive consequences even if we ignore climate change completely (think air quality and corresponding public health concerns, as well as political risks associated with fossil fuels). It will be one of the breakthrough developments of human civilization and unlock tremendous potential, but people are concerned with the aesthetics of windmills and bickering about minor subsidies, while there is literally an economic crisis going on because some ships with liquified dinosaurs on boats can’t get to their destination on time …
KaiserPro 7mo ago
> Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark Strategic mix. I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable. urianium sourcing can be an issue, but sadly so are batteries. (granted nuclear fuel is changed more often)
- actionfromafar 7mo ago
  Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.
  - 00N8 7mo ago
    Not really - for either system, the transformer substations are the part that's vulnerable to drones. Any munition capable of breaching the outer containment structure of a nuclear power plant (let alone impacting the core, dozens to hundreds of meters further inside) is closer to a bunker buster than a drone. What I'd really like to see though is heavy subsidies for synthetic e-fuel plants running a carbon negative process during off peak hours. That would work with both solar & nuclear.
    - actionfromafar 7mo ago
      Ok, nuclear is a strategic missile target. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.
      - adrian_b 7mo ago
        Nuclear could be more distributed too. The obstacles for small nuclear reactors have not been technical, but the fear that they may be more easily misused. There are good arguments against nuclear, but not being more distributed is not one of them.
        7mo ago
inglor_cz 7mo ago
I am a bit surprised that a engineer-heavy forum does not think about scaling of batteries. If everyone in the developed world starts to build batteries massively - in the extent necessary to bridge multiple days of bad weather for millions of people, because that is what happens quite often in northern half of Europe in winter - there will be new strategic dependencies, at least during the buildup phase, and then in a smaller extent for maintenance and modernization. Instead of oil, lithium and other resources not present or not mined in Europe will become worth fighting over and blackmailing over. When we are already undergoing such a massive transformation, I would like to have a bit more strategic independence, instead of trading Arab/Iranian/Russia pressure for Chinese/Bolivian/Congolese pressure. Ultimately, we must hope for fusion and/or geothermal to become practical. These are nigh impossible to be subjected to geopolitical constraints.
- tfourb 7mo ago
  There are already battery chemistries available that do not rely on lithium and drastically reduce the usage of other suplly-contrained inputs. Especially for stationary storage (where energy density and weight are not much of a concern) there is a wide array of technologies already available and in development. And as you yourself say: once a battery has been built, it simply exists. There is a very gradual deterioration, but nothing even close to the "just in time" dependency that we are experiencing in this very moment when it comes to fossil fuels. For a strategic independence point of view, being reliant on a global value chain to replace existing infrastructure every 15 years beats being reliant on a global value chain to replace your tank of gas every day by miles. Don't let perfect become the enemy of good!
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > There are already battery chemistries available that do not rely on lithium Not being mass produced. Betting on multiple horses makes sense. It's perhaps the singular lesson from the present problem.
  - inglor_cz 7mo ago
    These need to be available in enormous quantities, though. Are they? Who produces them? Please tell me that it is not China and that they don't come with a firmware that may or may not have remotely exploitable rootkits. The road from a lab discovery through a working prototype to mass-deployable tech usually takes decades, especially in devices which pack a tremendous amount of energy.

by tfourb 7mo ago

coldtea 7mo ago

>Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh Because the related lobby pays well and a huge power station project (which runs well into the tens of billions) has much larger space for bribes

crimsoneer 7mo ago
Alternatively, because nuclear power still works at night.
- coldtea 7mo ago
  If only we had some way to store energy
  - mrmlz 7mo ago
    At scale.
    - tfourb 7mo ago
      You mean like 27 Gwh of yearly installed capacity kind of scale? https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-eu-installs-27-1-g-wh-of-new-batteries-in-2025-as-utility-scale-storage-drives-record-growth https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-e...
      - Jensson 7mo ago
        Nice, that gets us enough battery to survive winters in 10 000 years.
        defrost 7mo ago
        Now linearly extropolate oil supply numbers from just prior to Ford's Model-T. How many thousands of years pass before we can meet current 2096 oil demand?
        Jensson 7mo ago
        That is why we need to stop with oil quickly, yes. Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there yet when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today.
        defrost 7mo ago
        No, that is why you made a gross error extrapolating grid battery growth. > when oil runs out, which it is close to doing today. Peak oil is a way off yet, and the reason we need to stop using sequestered carbon is because atmospheric insulation is increasing steadily as a direct result of fossil fuel usage. Not because of ground supply shortfall. The current events highlight the supply chain issue - not a shortage of oil, it's a shortfall in "oil going anywhere". > Nuclear will do that, and people will pick nuclear if the renewables aren't there Again, country by country - nuclear makes sense in China, the US to a degree, France, the UK (despite the snails progress) to a degree ... but makes no sense in, say, Australia that has abundant sunlight, fresh air that moves, and near zero prior experience with nuclear power and plant construction (See: the very recent Australian CSIRO report on energy futures for Australia)

mrmlz 7mo ago

As a Swede i'd like to cut the cord to Denmark/Germany. That would greatly reduce our electricity costs in south/mid Sweden. Let them enjoy their "cheap" wind and battery solution.

tfourb 7mo ago
You export more to Norway + Finnland than to Denmark + Germany: https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/energy/energy-supply-and-use/monthly-electricity-statistics-including-switches-of-electricity-supplier/pong/tables-and-graphs/monthly-import-and-export-of-electricity/ https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje... And my guess would be that it would be much more expensive for you to build out (and hold in reserve) enough generation capacity to satisfy your theoretical peak demand than it costs to have interconnected grids and a large efficient market, even if you are a net exporter.
- mrmlz 7mo ago
  You are aware of our different price-markets in sweden right? SE4 is priced at the export prices for Danish wind and German goal - which sucks for Swedes in SE4 (and to some extent SE3). SE4 can eat their own dogfood since they cut the Nuclear Power and are now burning oil instead (Karlshamnsverket).
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

bryanrasmussen 7mo ago

>Why would you I am unfortunately not the one empowered to make these decisions, nor do I know the reasoning of those who are, I just noted it seems back on the table based on discussions, maybe because >Nuclear power makes certain sense for nations that want a military nuclear arsenal and are willing to subsidize nuclear reactors since also on the table seems to be making a deal with France for Nuclear Weapons access, as I understand what I read.

dncornholio 7mo ago

Wind + Battery doesn't exist. Wind and solar renewables are dependent on natural gas plants at this moment. This is why nuclear is still a consideration, it's more "green" then most "green" energy.

toraway 7mo ago
By that definition, nuclear is also “dependent on natural gas” because it’s a baseload power source that can’t dynamically follow demand.
tfourb 7mo ago
Wind and solar are not "dependent" on natural gas plants. You can observe this quite well by simply building a wind or solar plant, connect a battery and a load. It works and it works well. Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When renewable generation is not sufficient, the difference is made up with generation from fossil-fueled thermal plants. But the existence of thermal power plants shouldn't be confused with any form of technical reliance on them. 100% renewable grids are inherently possible. If only, because you can simply enlarge grids geographically to the point that wind and solar production averages out. In combination with planned overcapacity (you can simply "switch off" wind and solar if you don't need generation), you strictly speaking don't even need batteries. It's just much more economical.
- modo_mario 7mo ago
  >Many national grids do not have enough renewable generation capacity to satisfy 100% demand at all times yet. When will it make sense for many countries? Because the difference between peak production and a winter dip for germany in let's say Berlin is enormous.
  - tfourb 7mo ago
    First of all there is no alternative that makes sense. Climate change is real and its consequences are more expensive and catastrophic than any trade-offs we’ll have to make for a 100% renewable grid. The good news is that going 100% renewable is probably less onerous than most people expect. If we get our act together politically, we can easily build the grids, generation, storage and intelligent loads required. With the exception of a few industrial processes, the technology is already existing and economically viable, but it also gets better and cheaper every year. I never get why people are so opposed to renewables. In the past (and apparently present), we have spent multiples of what we’d need for 100% renewables on stupid wars. Now we could transform our economy with dramatic positive consequences even if we ignore climate change completely (think air quality and corresponding public health concerns, as well as political risks associated with fossil fuels). It will be one of the breakthrough developments of human civilization and unlock tremendous potential, but people are concerned with the aesthetics of windmills and bickering about minor subsidies, while there is literally an economic crisis going on because some ships with liquified dinosaurs on boats can’t get to their destination on time …

KaiserPro 7mo ago

> Why would you invest in nuclear power, which is several times more expensive per kwh than wind + battery in Denmark Strategic mix. I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but nuclear can be used as a tool with batteries to make wind much more reliable. urianium sourcing can be an issue, but sadly so are batteries. (granted nuclear fuel is changed more often)

actionfromafar 7mo ago
Nuclear is a strategic drone target first and foremost. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.
- 00N8 7mo ago
  Not really - for either system, the transformer substations are the part that's vulnerable to drones. Any munition capable of breaching the outer containment structure of a nuclear power plant (let alone impacting the core, dozens to hundreds of meters further inside) is closer to a bunker buster than a drone. What I'd really like to see though is heavy subsidies for synthetic e-fuel plants running a carbon negative process during off peak hours. That would work with both solar & nuclear.
  - actionfromafar 7mo ago
    Ok, nuclear is a strategic missile target. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.
    - adrian_b 7mo ago
      Nuclear could be more distributed too. The obstacles for small nuclear reactors have not been technical, but the fear that they may be more easily misused. There are good arguments against nuclear, but not being more distributed is not one of them.
      - 7mo ago

inglor_cz 7mo ago

I am a bit surprised that a engineer-heavy forum does not think about scaling of batteries. If everyone in the developed world starts to build batteries massively - in the extent necessary to bridge multiple days of bad weather for millions of people, because that is what happens quite often in northern half of Europe in winter - there will be new strategic dependencies, at least during the buildup phase, and then in a smaller extent for maintenance and modernization. Instead of oil, lithium and other resources not present or not mined in Europe will become worth fighting over and blackmailing over. When we are already undergoing such a massive transformation, I would like to have a bit more strategic independence, instead of trading Arab/Iranian/Russia pressure for Chinese/Bolivian/Congolese pressure. Ultimately, we must hope for fusion and/or geothermal to become practical. These are nigh impossible to be subjected to geopolitical constraints.

tfourb 7mo ago
There are already battery chemistries available that do not rely on lithium and drastically reduce the usage of other suplly-contrained inputs. Especially for stationary storage (where energy density and weight are not much of a concern) there is a wide array of technologies already available and in development. And as you yourself say: once a battery has been built, it simply exists. There is a very gradual deterioration, but nothing even close to the "just in time" dependency that we are experiencing in this very moment when it comes to fossil fuels. For a strategic independence point of view, being reliant on a global value chain to replace existing infrastructure every 15 years beats being reliant on a global value chain to replace your tank of gas every day by miles. Don't let perfect become the enemy of good!
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > There are already battery chemistries available that do not rely on lithium Not being mass produced. Betting on multiple horses makes sense. It's perhaps the singular lesson from the present problem.
- inglor_cz 7mo ago
  These need to be available in enormous quantities, though. Are they? Who produces them? Please tell me that it is not China and that they don't come with a firmware that may or may not have remotely exploitable rootkits. The road from a lab discovery through a working prototype to mass-deployable tech usually takes decades, especially in devices which pack a tremendous amount of energy.