Comment by lucideer

Comment by lucideer 12 hours ago

> 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 11 hours 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.

Reply View 5 replies

m101 an hour ago

Nuclear is baseload which is why it always runs. Gas peakers is what you turn on and off.

Reply View | 2 replies
- ViewTrick1002 38 minutes 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”.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  m101 34 minutes 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.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
lucideer 10 hours 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).

Reply View | 1 reply
- _aavaa_ 5 hours 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.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

GoatInGrey 9 hours 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.

Reply View 0 replies