4 ms·

Renewables are cheap. Renewables plus battery storage still are not and nuclear is a reasonable alternative for base load power.

panick21_ 6mo ago
More improtantly is actually renewables, plus batteries plus massive updates for the grid. The grid updates alone will cost 100s of billions. With nuclear and centralized distribution you would still have to upgrade the grid for 10s of billions, just because of electric cars and electrification (and general maintance). But renewables and batteries make this so much worse, specially once you talk about long distance renewable. One you are talking about building solar in Greece and then talk about how nuclear is 'to expensive and slow'.
- crote 6mo ago
  The main benefit of battery storage is that it is trivially easy to decentralize, so if anything it will save money on grid upgrades. Same with solar: no need to upgrade long-distance transmission lines when production happens right next door to consumption.
  - panick21_ 6mo ago
    You can look at the projections by all the grid providers if you don't believe me.
triceratops 6mo ago
Renewables + battery are already the cheapest solution in some places. By the time a new nuclear power plant is built they will be cheaper everywhere.
- Jensson 6mo ago
  People said that 40 years ago and see where we are today, if people hadn't said that we would have a much cleaner world today. We might have that good and cheap batteries in 20 years, but also possible we wont have that. Would you really wanna bet our planets climate on your gut feeling that batteries will get that good?
  - triceratops 6mo ago
    > People said that 40 years ago and see where we are today That it's true today because people worked on it for 40 years? It would've been amazing if more nuclear had been built 40 years ago. But it wasn't and there's nothing you or I can do about it. > We might have that good and cheap batteries in 20 years They're already good and cheap. And more like 5 years than 20. > Would you really wanna bet our planets climate on your gut feeling that batteries will get that good? It isn't a gut feeling. They'll get better faster than you can build new nuclear because that's what we've seen in the past 20 years. No one's holding nuclear back on pure vibes. Solar + batteries is already beating nuclear and will continue to increase the lead. That's just math. Its true boss fight is fossil fuels and achieving mass electrification. If anything, when new nuclear does get built eventually, it will benefit from all the progress made on electrification and new transmission and storage capacity.
crote 6mo ago
Nuclear isn't an economically viable option for base load. Nuclear is the most expensive form of power generation. If there is excess supply, forcefully turning off renewables to buy electricity from nuclear would make the electricity needlessly expensive and kill the free market. In other words: it can only be a base load if we massively subsidize it and throw away free renewable electricity. On the other hand, nuclear isn't a viable peaker plant option either. Virtually all of its costs come from paying back the construction loan, so a nuclear plant which operates at an average capacity of 10% will be 10x as expensive as one operating at 100% capacity. And 10x higher than the already-highest cost isn't exactly going to be competitive when battery storage, carbon capture, hydrogen storage, or even just building spare capacity are also available options.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  renewables are already curtailed and market is still not killed. Nuclear is very expensive if you build it in 20y. H2 per lazard even at 25%mix is as bas as vogtle in terms of lcoe. And thats with cheap us gas for the rest 75%
  - mpweiher 6mo ago
    1. LCOE is not the appropriate metric, especially when you have intermittent renewables in the mix. 2. Lazard themselves say that their LCOE numbers for nuclear are not indicative. https://x.com/mpweiher/status/1811656245700358478?s=20 https://x.com/mpweiher/status/1811656245700358478?s=20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ
    - Moldoteck 6mo ago
      I know, full system lcoe must be considered with all bells and whistles. I'm comparing lcoe of worst nuclear project in us vs lcoe of hydrogen peakers

panick21_ 6mo ago

More improtantly is actually renewables, plus batteries plus massive updates for the grid. The grid updates alone will cost 100s of billions. With nuclear and centralized distribution you would still have to upgrade the grid for 10s of billions, just because of electric cars and electrification (and general maintance). But renewables and batteries make this so much worse, specially once you talk about long distance renewable. One you are talking about building solar in Greece and then talk about how nuclear is 'to expensive and slow'.

crote 6mo ago
The main benefit of battery storage is that it is trivially easy to decentralize, so if anything it will save money on grid upgrades. Same with solar: no need to upgrade long-distance transmission lines when production happens right next door to consumption.
- panick21_ 6mo ago
  You can look at the projections by all the grid providers if you don't believe me.

triceratops 6mo ago

Renewables + battery are already the cheapest solution in some places. By the time a new nuclear power plant is built they will be cheaper everywhere.

Jensson 6mo ago
People said that 40 years ago and see where we are today, if people hadn't said that we would have a much cleaner world today. We might have that good and cheap batteries in 20 years, but also possible we wont have that. Would you really wanna bet our planets climate on your gut feeling that batteries will get that good?
- triceratops 6mo ago
  > People said that 40 years ago and see where we are today That it's true today because people worked on it for 40 years? It would've been amazing if more nuclear had been built 40 years ago. But it wasn't and there's nothing you or I can do about it. > We might have that good and cheap batteries in 20 years They're already good and cheap. And more like 5 years than 20. > Would you really wanna bet our planets climate on your gut feeling that batteries will get that good? It isn't a gut feeling. They'll get better faster than you can build new nuclear because that's what we've seen in the past 20 years. No one's holding nuclear back on pure vibes. Solar + batteries is already beating nuclear and will continue to increase the lead. That's just math. Its true boss fight is fossil fuels and achieving mass electrification. If anything, when new nuclear does get built eventually, it will benefit from all the progress made on electrification and new transmission and storage capacity.

crote 6mo ago

Nuclear isn't an economically viable option for base load. Nuclear is the most expensive form of power generation. If there is excess supply, forcefully turning off renewables to buy electricity from nuclear would make the electricity needlessly expensive and kill the free market. In other words: it can only be a base load if we massively subsidize it and throw away free renewable electricity. On the other hand, nuclear isn't a viable peaker plant option either. Virtually all of its costs come from paying back the construction loan, so a nuclear plant which operates at an average capacity of 10% will be 10x as expensive as one operating at 100% capacity. And 10x higher than the already-highest cost isn't exactly going to be competitive when battery storage, carbon capture, hydrogen storage, or even just building spare capacity are also available options.

Moldoteck 6mo ago
renewables are already curtailed and market is still not killed. Nuclear is very expensive if you build it in 20y. H2 per lazard even at 25%mix is as bas as vogtle in terms of lcoe. And thats with cheap us gas for the rest 75%
- mpweiher 6mo ago
  1. LCOE is not the appropriate metric, especially when you have intermittent renewables in the mix. 2. Lazard themselves say that their LCOE numbers for nuclear are not indicative. https://x.com/mpweiher/status/1811656245700358478?s=20 https://x.com/mpweiher/status/1811656245700358478?s=20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    I know, full system lcoe must be considered with all bells and whistles. I'm comparing lcoe of worst nuclear project in us vs lcoe of hydrogen peakers