3 ms·
At a cost which could generate ~10 billion watts of very low CO2 electricity for decades if invested in renewables. Also remember that large parts of a nuclear
by ViewTrick1002 5mo ago
At a cost which could generate ~10 billion watts of very low CO2 electricity for decades if invested in renewables.
Also remember that large parts of a nuclear plant is replaced over its operational life. Control systems, steam generators, turbines, generators, tubing, valves etc.
What stays is the outer shell and pressure vessel. A nuclear plant doesn't just "work" for 60 years. And there's no trouble designing renewables with a 60 year lifespan.
We just don't do it because spending money on getting their expected operational lifetimes from decades to 60+ years is betting on extremely uncertain future returns.
- pjc50 5mo agoUnder appreciated benefits of Big Photodiode is that there's no moving parts larger than an electron. They do degrade over time, especially due to weathering of the seals and UV exposure, but all the quoted numbers are worst-case. (Inverters are more complicated products and may need more frequently replaced)
- UltraSane 5mo agoNuclear reactors work at night and when there is no wind. Reliable electricity is far more valuable than unreliable electricity.
- ViewTrick1002 5mo agoDid we have rolling blackouts from electricity shortages during the energy crisis? No. Was the electricity extremely expensive? Yes. Reliable electricity has a certain worth. And that is vastly lower than what nuclear power needs when running at 100% 24/7 all year around. And that is disregarding that EDF is already crying about renewables crater the earning potential of their existing nuclear fleet due to load following and increased maintenance costs. Let alone horrifyingly expensive new builds.
- Moldoteck 5mo agobut for ren you need parallel gas firming. For nuclear you need some backup, but not fully parallel grid. Paid off npp can generate very cheaply, at 4-7ct/kwh
- ViewTrick1002 5mo agoI don’t see the difference with nuclear power? Take California, a yearly baseload of 15 GW and peak load of 52 GW. What problem is even a ”baseload” of nuclear power solving? But we should of course keep our existing fleet around as long as it is safe, needed and economical. In that order. EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds. And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
- Moldoteck 5mo agoFrance does not have a fully parallel nuclear power grid ready to step in when some other half isnt working. Germany has a fully parallel fossils firming grid on top of their ren deployments. EDF isnt crying. It's just treated poorly even by looking at ARENH tax which was replaced with another one this year, while ren business gets CFD's and curtailment payments. French nuclear fleet is extremely flexible, RTE data is public. In fact, due to ARENH law EDF was forced to subsidize competition because otherwise that competition would not exist.
- UltraSane 5mo agoGermany has a very dirty parallel coal electricity grid which is why it emits 5 to 6 times as much CO2 per joule as France.