dalyons

8 ms·

121.
by dalyons 5mo ago
trying to ban onshore wind on private land now.
122.
by dalyons 5mo ago
> Long-term structural capital will go into nuclear energy nearly zero capital will go into nuclear energy, unless it can be made a lot more affordable. It is structurally completely uncompetitive, and uninvestable without massive state
123.
by dalyons 5mo ago
i dont think so. this is about onshore, on private land
124.
by dalyons 5mo ago
i am all for nuclear power if it can be made economical. Today it is the most expensive mainstream form of energy when built new, and cannot compete on grids increasingly filled with renewables. Hopefully projects like this can innovate in
125.
by dalyons 5mo ago
Why do you think insurance and cleanup is included in the price? There’s no reason to believe that for a state industry. Also Capex loans are not paid back when the plant is done, you pay them off gradually out of profits over decades once
126.
by dalyons 5mo ago
> So now the discussion is not about whether base load is a thing or not, it is that you firmly believe that batteries are the answer to everything. Nope, im still talking about the economics of base load. It exists insofar as there is b
127.
by dalyons 5mo ago
i mean competitive as in "free market competitive". chinas plants do not have to compete on their own all in costs as a private enterprise, they are majority state owned. So they dont have to pay insurance, cleanup, or long term c
128.
by dalyons 5mo ago
not single party, but the nukes are all majority owned by the state. Which tends to obscure real costs, as there are no insurance, cleanup, and capex loan interest costs. All covered by the state. Which are some of the biggest costs that ma
129.
by dalyons 5mo ago
Large geographic networks like the EU really help to smooth that variance out. Anyway, on average is all that really matters here. Remember, I’m not saying we can only have batteries and if they run out we’re in the dark. We’ll use gas to f
130.
by dalyons 5mo ago
GP is saying gas has relatively little emissions in this scenario because we wont use it much total in a year. Not because its cleaner.
131.
by dalyons 5mo ago
wind runs through the night, and so does hydro and existing nuclear. So lets say, 15,000gwh that needs shifting? Still a big number, but... BESS increased 45% y/y in 2025, and is looking like higher growth than that in 2026 already ~60
132.
by dalyons 5mo ago
Yes, and pursing state sponsored nuclear means higher prices are guaranteed to stick around
133.
by dalyons 5mo ago
I guess I agree with your “should” in a world where we have infinite dollars to spend. Sadly we refuse to treat it as existential, so the dollars we have to spend are roughly fixed. In that world we live today any dollar spent on nuclear fo
134.
by dalyons 5mo ago
Did you read my comment? 10% budget for gas backup buys you 35 days, if on those days there is 0% other production (extremely unlikely). Seems pretty conservative to me?
135.
by dalyons 5mo ago
The “common 25 year lifecycle” was never a drop dead expectation. That’s usually just what they’re warrantied for. It’s always been a common misunderstanding Edit: If you don’t trust my source , please show one of your own that proves they
136.
by dalyons 5mo ago
competitive is the wrong word. It does not have to compete on price or all in lifecycle cost, because its single party state that owns everything and cant be voted out. But i do agree that if they want it, they'll make it happen.
137.
by dalyons 5mo ago
25 year replacement for solar is a myth. [1] . They may degrade to ~80% but they keep on working and producing, so far it seems almost indefinitely. [1] https://www.ecoticias.com/en/goodbye-to-the-idea-that-solar-...
138.
by dalyons 5mo ago
given that we dont have nukes, and we wont for 10 years even if we started today, and we arent going to start them because theyre economic disasters... in the medium term its going to be batteries + solar/wind + gas backups for rare we
139.
by dalyons 5mo ago
naw, we'll just build enough battery to cover the nights and then use gas as emergency backup for any rare wonky weather events. that could easily get us to 90+% clean, which would be absolutely amazing. Constant base load only supply
140.
by dalyons 5mo ago
what about an existential-crisis-then-costs-be-damned emergency buildout of renewables and batteries? you would displace more carbon emissions far faster than a nuclear buildout, just due to the speed at which they can be deployed and scale
141.
by dalyons 5mo ago
china is a single party state. they can order whatever plants they want and they'll get built - regardless of how much they cost, regardless of if the power is economically competitive, with no need for insurance (the state will clean
142.
by dalyons 5mo ago
so what should europe do? gas being expensive doesnt make nuclear economics better for the role of variable backstop of an increasingly renewable grid. Its still a fatal economic equation for nuclear. Btw battery is rapidly changing the mat
143.
by dalyons 5mo ago
you're talking about "should". Im talking about the world we live in. They are unfortunately not the same.
144.
by dalyons 5mo ago
for the foreseeable future that weather-anomoly backup role is going to be filled by gas. Spins up very fast, nearly zero marginal cost while sitting idle. And yes, it creates emissions, but if you're only using it for rare weather eve
145.
by dalyons 5mo ago
have a read through this: https://cleanenergyreview.io/p/baseload-is-a-myth basically, base load means the lowest point of demand on the grid. And you matched that with slow-to-respond thermal power plants (coal mainly
146.
by dalyons 5mo ago
it actually is a choice between nuclear and PV, because base load supply is an obsolete concept. Because actually nuclear is terrible in a grid increasingly full of nearly-free variable sources (solar&wind). The nukes need to stay at 10
147.
by dalyons 5mo ago
Lip service support. Nukes are too expensive and too slow to build. in the 10 years it would take to get one producing power from today, they’ll be even more cost obsolete by the relentless progress of renewables and battery. When leaders s
148.
by dalyons 5mo ago
It takes a decade at least for any new nuclear starting today to come online in the west. In that decade you’ve built an awful lot of batteries for the same amount of money. No one wants to bet $10s of billions of nuke capex against the rel
149.
by dalyons 5mo ago
They also, most importantly, don’t have to care if any of their reactors make economic sense. It is a single party state, and the incentive structure is very different.
150.
by dalyons 5mo ago
I agree to an extent… but a state forcing a nuclear share and locking the populace into higher power prices for 30+ years is going to politically very unpopular. Short term economic concerns dominate today.

More ›