Hacker News Reader

Comment by schleck8 | Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that nuclear is really expensive when factoring in insurance and disposable, a lot more so than wind and solar.

>The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...

View on HN

> Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Why should we not add in every substantial city the dignity of an ancient university or a European capital … an ample theater, a concert hall, a dance hall, a gallery, cafes, and so forth. Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford. … We are immeasurably richer than our predecessors. Is it not evident that some sophistry, some fallacy, governs our collective action if we are forced to be so much meaner than they in the embellishments of life? …

-- John Maynard Keynes

A nuclear power station is not exactly a university or an art gallery.

The larger point still stands.

Investments look more bad than they should when:

- We ignore externalities

- We ignore that demand changes too, whether in response to monetary magic, or simply do to elasticity (it was always there, we just didn't know it).

This applies to both Keynes's examples and nuclear.

It does benefit society by creating a baseline energy source that is cleaner than coal or natural gas.

Which ignorants can - and will - proceed to piss away on terrace heaters to have drinks while having a smoke outside on the street

So what is your proposed solution? Outlaw non-renewable energy sources and simply let energy prices to go up by any amount?

Carbon Tax + "Carbon Dividend" (UBI) so that the vast majority of poeple's CoL does not go up at first but if they can reduce their car usage they can rake in the dough, is a nice first step.

See https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/decarbonizing-us...

Are you saying we should ignore the economic aspect of everything?

Considering this came from an economist, obviously not. Just that we've been doing it wrong.

(Consider this year's Nobel, awarded to people who demonstrated....we were doing it wrong.)

> Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds

The key word in that text above is "every" - as part of the whole statement it indicates they're suggesting there should be some exceptions, not that the economic aspect of everything should be ignored.

holy hell that's a great quote

Thanks :)

It's a mission of mine to make (Post-)Keynesianism an essential part of Engineering from a holistic perspective.

The economy won't run at "full speed" left to its own devices, and new technology will have a harder time making it out of the research phase without full speed. VCs, being strictly supply-side, are not equipped to solve the problem. (Trying to do everything from the supply side is like trying to "push a string".)

And from a more personal angle, the "inventor distraught about being misunderstand by the world" is well-ingrained meme now. Better we have the science to understand what's really going on than not.

Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford. … Little did John know the future would bring such wonders as HS2, lockdowns, the Ethiopian spice girls, NHS, a fake property market, ... a very different world.

Thank you for this quote, it's a great one, saving it.

Thank you! Very glad to spread the word, as the I said in the other reply.

It’s worth noting that you are confusing system costs and levelized costs of electricity.

Cheap wind and solar electricity is absolutely useless if it cannot be produced on demand.

Nuclear produces electricity 24/7, independent of weather with no backup required.

The kWh costs 30 cents in Germany, but 15 cents in France.

> Nuclear produces electricity 24/7, independent of weather with no backup required.

When the plant is not offline…

Can't a nuclear energy plant run continuously? (Genuinely asking.)

They must be shutdown to be refueled regularly, but it can be planned for.

Refueling usually takes a long time, minimum three weeks, and a month is common:

https://www.outagecalendar.com/

Forever? No. For the design life of the reactor? Possibly, for a purpouse designed reactor type.

If you want it today, there's the nuclear radioisotope thermoelectric generator, in use since the 50s and used on many spacecraft.

When is it offline? A few days (or weeks) every 12-24 months?

I don't think it's a major problem with a network of nuclear plants, you can plan the fuel replacement and have a steady power supply (nationwide). You can control when the downtime happens, unlike in other power sources.

Much more often on average for nuclear plants. Avg capacity factor is 83% according to https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/3418bf4a-5891-4ba1-b6...

Obviously the grid needs to have a fleet of base load plants large enough that some can be periodically taken offline for maintenance. This is understood by everyone familiar with the issue and we shouldn't have to keep repeating it. Maintenance schedules also apply to every other type of power plant capable of handling base load.

> with no backup required.

Not true.

> The kWh costs 30 cents in Germany, but 15 cents in France.

International comparisons are useless without comparison of pricing structure. That includes for example the tax regime, fees mandated, etc.

The electricity that is produced at night is sold cheaper in Germany, as it's mostly not used anyway - mostly because storage is difficult. But since the world is currently being filled with an abundance of large batteries like in electric cars, this energy loss will decrease over time. These batteries could also compensate peaks in demand.

> Nuclear produces electricity 24/7, independent of weather with no backup required.

Actually, no. Heatwaves can and did disable thermal plants in the past:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...

This is an problem that will only be intensified by climate change.

We've literally just been through an entire energy crisis in Europe that was exacerbated due to inconsistent wind.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Europes-E...

  The UK is suffering the most from the drop in wind power output, caused by mild weather. The country, which prides itself on its wind capacity and whose Prime Minister last year said wind farms could power every home by 2030, produced less than 1 GW of wind power on several days. This compares with a generation capacity of 24 GW, according to ICIS senior energy economist Stefan Konstantinov.

Cheap isn't as important as reliable. It's not like these countries have no money.

Just-in-type supply chains are "cheaper" too.

There is this cycle where this is blamed on a combination of Brexit and global warming, so they want to shift to even more wind/solar, causing even more outages, and it's a positive feedback loop.

One would think that if you seriously believed that the climate is going to rapidly change, then you would seek out climate-independent sources of energy. It's like predicting the world will be in drought but then advocating for more hydro power. But perhaps I don't understand the full nuances of European politics.

I'm reminded of the Tom Scott video mentioning how parts of the grid is simply not up to the task yet to get wind energy from high-wind areas into the mainland.

'The islands with too much power' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmsfXWzvEA

Cost is irrelevant if you can’t store the energy generated. Nuclear is predictable and carbon free. Look at France.

Solar + 4 hours of storage clocking in at $40/MWh in ideal conditions. Substitute for windpower and some worse conditions and nuclear energy still look awful from a cost perspective.

https://www.energy-storage.news/developer-8minute-says-more-...

Something about wind and solar isn't working to meet the increasing demands in Germany

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...

From 2020 to 2021, Coal is up 8%, Wind is down 7%, Solar is down 1%.

Non-renewable in total is up 8% and renewable is down 8%.

If they can find a battery solution that actually works, then that would be amazing, but existing solutions clearly aren't cutting it.

While it might cost more, nuclear power is extremely reliable and offers energy independence, a form of national security that is vital with Russian pipelines strongly influencing the geopolitics of the region. I hope better batteries can offer them the same, because it's sad watching coal expand dramatically.

You should look at longer time periods instead of just looking at one year. Year to year variability could be big due to a variety of reasons.

When it comes to consistent power generation, Germans can't just wait until next year. Wind power has it's ups and downs, which is why you need a lot more of it than coal or nuclear to meet the same demand.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does night time in Germany sometimes exceed four hours?

The wind also ceases to exist at night right?

Not every night, no. But electricity supply needs to be reliable, not "only on windy nights."

I think you’re being glib, but the issue is that you can’t guarantee the alignment of sun and wind to match demand. Sometimes the wind blows at night, yes, but sometimes it does not. On a pure renewable grid, no wind at night means rolling brownouts or blackouts. This is particularly problematic during the summer when people want to run AC in order to sleep, and will also be an issue when people move to electric heat in the winter.

Long term we’ll use a mix of big grids, over provisioned renewables, and grid level storage to smooth this out, but we’re not there yet. Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one.

> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one.

Well, gas and coal. Germany is still ~26% coal in 2021[1].

Edit: Maybe 50% coal if you look at consumption, not just generation, per 'incrudible[2].

[1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... (Lignite is a kind of coal)

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398

I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both are fossil fuels, so neither option is great.

It's all about the geographical decoupling with local storage and smart consumers to smooth the loads. For example tying the charging of your electric car while it's parked to the current price. Spatial and temporal arbitrage of energy, which nuclear is completely awful at.

Or using Swedish, Norwegian hydro and wind together with German, British and Danish wind. These links are on the same scale as nuclear reactors.

Germany <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink

UK <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link

UK (Scotland) <-> Norway (On hold by Norway, cleared on Scottish side) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect

Denmark <-> Norway (1977) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_...

No, gas is not more economical everywhere. It is in places which have gas, but most of Europe doesn’t have it — it has coal, though. For most of Europe, betting on gas means putting themselves under Kremlin control for its basic needs.

Germany is closer to 50% coal if you look at actual demand being fulfilled instead of just production. In the linked image, the grey area is conventionals (mostly coal), the green area is exports of surplus.

https://oneinabillionblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hourly...

In this future use case, is coal plant really evil, or acceptable?

What future use case? We’re talking about right now.

Also, coal emissions kill 100,000 people yearly, 25,000 in Europe alone. Yes, it’s evil.

We can also use real time price mechanism to match demand with supply intra day, energy intensive loads like water/home heating and ev charging can cheaply (vs cost of batteries connected to grid) buffer many hours without issue.

In cold and hot places, you cannot easily buffer heating and AC for hours.

You can if you have decent insulation (which at least cold climates do). In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Better insulation will become a more attractive investment than in the past.

> In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time.

Night time is usually when heating is most needed.

Shifting AC to night time in hot regions would be more impressive.

> Night time is usually when heating is most needed.

If we are still talking about cold climates where houses are well insulated, it's a more convenient timing but not really needed. If you cut heating for half the night or even more, indoor temp won't drop too much even if outdoor temp is notably lower than day time. It might drop a few degrees as you are sleeping warmly tucked in, but that's not dangerous, and you can still heat your bedroom if you want to avoid even that slight adjustment.

A well insulated modern construction can hold a temperature for a long time. Heating and cooling during energy availability and using your insulated building as a thermal battery of sorts is a real thing, and should be I think considered part of the solution here.

Yes, it should. But this drives up the cost of new housing when we’re already struggling to produce enough housing of any quality. As always, these things come with trade offs.

(For the record my house is very well insulated because I agree with you emphatically, but I also recognize that I have the material means to afford that insulation/construction cost that not everyone else is able to)

An observation of Griddy during the Texas disaster shows that we should be very careful in designing a real time price mechanism that’s applied to consumers. In the worst case this can take the form of passing all the risk and cost onto consumers who cannot handle this. This is particularly pernicious for HVAC, because during outages this puts consumers in the un-enviable position of deciding between their savings and not freezing/boiling to death.

Some loads can be moved, such as ev charging, but others cannot. The issue is that a lot of consumer load is less shiftable than you suppose. House heating (presumably we’d electrify this, because global warming) cannot be deferred for too long, and most households go through a hot water tank a day. These loads can be deferred for short periods of time, but proposing that people go without hot water or temperature control for even moderate periods of time is a political non starter. From an infrastructure standpoint it’s also worth mentioning how many people die and how many buildings get ruined by even a few days without power during severe weather events, which is often exactly when prices would rise.

A holistic view of the situation shows that while there is some smart grid stuff we can do, we still need to provide a guaranteed minimum worth of power generation no matter what. Ideally this would come from grid level storage so that we can run everything off renewables, but we’re just not there yet. The reality is that until we get there, the choice is between nuclear power and some other form of fossil fuel, typically natural gas. I think on the whole we’d be well served to commission one last set of nuclear power plants to get us through this crisis, and plan on decommissioning them in 2050 or so once grid level storage makes them obsolete.

The disaster scenario "no matter what" power can come from regulated backup turbines and emergency (fossil) fuel reserves I think. It's a separate/saparable subproblem. Just make the normal power companies pay a lot for tapping it, so there is disincentive to purpousefully use it.

That plan only works if we still have a functioning oil extraction and refinement system, which is something we’re obviously trying to get away from. Given how hard petroleum products are to store, these “just in case” power generation systems would require an entirely redundant but ready to operate fuel production process in the case renewables failed. It’s doable, but the cost would be absurd.

Probably easier to leave a bunch of nuclear power plants in standby, actually.

You can use fuels made from renewables for this too, was just thinking about the near future.

I'm somewhat pessimistic about large scale fossil fuel production ending in the world anytime soon. We'll have a long tail petering out period probably where the products get progressively more expensive, and if we avoid the mad max scenario, at some point get displaced by synthetic compatible fuels.

> we’re not there yet.

The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades to handle a huge tick in power demand every time the BBC goes to commercial break during a very popular program, as everyone simultaneously goes to make a cup of tea with their several-kilowatt electric kettle.

> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one.

False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies.

Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now.

> The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades

Pumped hydro is a pretty good choice for grid level storage today, but it has some pretty severe terrain limitations. There’s lots of places that will never use it because the terrain won’t allow it.

Of course there’s the issue of the actual numbers. Pumped hydro can store a ton of power in terms of watt hours, but the peak output in watts is very low. UK pumped hydro can produce 2.8GW of power combined. Pretty impressive until you realize that that’s less than some single nuclear plants. Blayais produces 3.6GW, Cattenom produces 5.2GW, etc. etc. A typical modern reactor has a nameplate capacity of 1.3GW or higher; literally adding a single reactor to an existing power plant is equivalent to half of the UK’s pumped hydro capacity.

The big advantage of pumped hydro is that you can combine power production with water storage, which is good! But it is not capable of producing enough power to enable a 100% renewable grid, and probably never will.

> False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies.

Huh? I “left out” energy storage? I literally said “grid level storage” in the full sentence, you just cut it out when you quoted me.

To reiterate: I didn’t “leave out” energy storage. I do not believe that we have enough energy storage yet to make fossil fuel plants unnecessary, especially as we push to electrify everything (transit, industry, etc.). One day we will be there, but currently we’re woefully short. It’s my assertion that nuclear power is a good way to bridge the gap while we keep building storage, because as of today we’re literally burning fossil fuels when renewables fall short of demand for whatever reason.

> Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now.

Sounds great, how many gigawatt hours are installed, or are being installed now, and how much can/will they be able to produce?

"But what led to wind power's sudden fall? Statistics officials said the weather was partly to blame.

A lack of wind from January to March this year sharply reduced the amount of electricity produced by Germany's wind turbines. In contrast, stormy weather in the first quarters of 2019 and 2020 sharply boosted the electricity produced."

The wind might go at night, or it might not, or it might not for months.

Gwypass, wind does die down during the night.

Yeah, people really underestimate the scale of the storage problem for solar. Energy usage peaks around 6pm[1], while the amount of energy solar can produce is trending towards zero. Without significant storage capability (i.e. enough to supply ~a days electricity), solar energy has a pretty limited use case in a real-time electric grid.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

At $40/MWh, you just triple it down and still come out ahead.

I doubt that article is correct.

Where I live, which is admittedly not Germany, nighttime sometimes exceeds 4 months..I don't think solar is gonna get me through the winter!

Oh and with temperatures well below 0, I need to heat my house somehow!

Perhaps, but wind power also tends to peak at night.

Wind speeds near the ground peak in the early afternoon. Higher altitude winds peak at night, but you need quite a large turbine to catch those. Sometimes there's no wind for days at a time.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/27/11/jcli-d...

Quoting from your link: "It is found that daily extreme wind speeds at 10 m are most likely in the early afternoon, whereas those at 200 m are most likely in between midnight and sunrise"

Ground is irrelevant; there's a reason why wind turbines are being put on top of tall towers.

200m tall towers?

Almost, the hub is still a bit more than 50m below but the rotor points above. Modern off-shore ones are true monsters.

For example this one, rotor diameter 220m, highest point 248m.

https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind...

As tall as technically possible. For example Vestas V164 reaches up to 220 meters. Haliade-X reaches up to 260 meters.

I would guess that the night usage is so low that with 4h daytime storage you can sustain all the night usage.

The problem is storing enough renewable energy for baseline power for a whole country.

Things that work at a small scale don't necessarily work at massive scale.

There is no storage solution. The required amount of batteries would be enormous, well in excess of production capacity. The only feasible solution to even out throths is (natural) gas plants. Neither coal nor nuclear are quickly adjustable in output, when combined with wind/solar they lead to peaks of overproduction. This is the situation in Germany.

Nuclear is massive-grid-scale base load only in a world that does not need more base load nor massive grid-scale generation. Everything about nuclear is slow, difficult, expensive, dangerous. They are increasingly not handling climate change well. They are decade-scale projects that take a long, long time to become carbon neutral; we cannot wait that long.

* Solar and wind are here to stay and they mean we need fast-reacting spare capacity and storage. Nuclear power plants are very slow to react and because they are so monumentally expensive they have to run at as high capacity as possible, as much as possible. They are strictly base load.

* Siting a nuclear power plant is very difficult just in terms of geology. Siting a nuclear power plant is very difficult grid-wise as well, because they are only cost-effective at massive scale. Super-high-voltage DC transmission systems can help, but they only tack on more to the project cost. You can't just inject gigawatts of power anywhere you want. And it isn't just injection that is the problem. Nuclear power plants that are not producing power need massive amounts of electricity to get things like cooling pumps running or keep them running until everything is up to temperature and you can get the turbines up to temperature and speed. Then there's the matter of needing sufficient cooling - usually done via river, ocean, or lake. Except climate change and other factors are making those sources of cooling increasingly unreliable (for example: invasive species like zebra mussels have made life hell for a lot of power plants)

* Nuclear power plants require lots of highly trained people to design, operate, and maintain. More power plants means more of them. Training them up isn't a short term affair. Solar and wind require far less of all of this. And frankly, I have serious doubts about societal stability in 20-30 years, and nuclear power plants are not even remotely friendly to any sort of societal instability. Not just in terms of security, but upkeep. They have very complex, deep supply chain needs.

* Building nuclear power plants from the start of planning to grid synchronization takes a decade or two, and it then takes another decade or so for the plant to become carbon-neutral in part due to the massive amount of concrete they require. Right now, we need to be reducing carbon footprint as much as possible, as fast as possible. Not causing huge increases in carbon footprint that will only balance out well past catastrophic climate conditions.

* Nuclear reactor containment vessels can only be constructed by a small handful of facilities and their capacity is very limited, and by and large already spoken for. We can't just wave a wand and start building more reactors tomorrow. Or even in the next several years.

* Nuclear waste may be a "solved" problem tech-wise as nuclear power proponents are fond of saying, but reality is that nuclear waste is a huge problem. Even short-term storage is a problem, as demonstrated, again, by Fukashima where fuel cooling ponds caught on fire.

Time and time again we demonstrate that we are not responsible enough to handle nuclear power; we've had numerous military nuclear power disasters; the commercial ones haven't stopped, either. A "1st world" country, arguably one of the most technologically advanced ones around, repeatedly bumbled every aspect of Fukashima, starting with the plant's design, its maintenance and procedures, and the response to the incident. What was Japan's excuse?

How many Mulligans does nuclear power need?

You know what happens when a solar or wind power plant is incompetently designed or run? A bunch of people lose lots of money. You don't end up with thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable. You don't need people with years of training supervising a bunch of solar panels. Maintenance on a wind turbine is a standard-industrial-equipment sort of job, no bunny suits required.

You know what happens when a country with solar or wind power has a government that is full of incompetent suit-stuffing chair-warming morons, or gets taken over by a despot dictator, or has an economic collapse? Nothing.

If you want to look to the future in power grids, look at the iron chemistry liquid batteries that are non-toxic and almost trivial to deploy at electrical substations. They can provide spare capacity at the neighborhood/regional level while helping balance distribution loads and allow those neighborhoods to continue to function in isolation in the event of transmission grid problems.

Wow, I think this post has actually changed my outlook on nuclear power. Congrats (no irony)

Nuclear is dangerous and needs to be treated as such.

Flying is also dangerous and is treated as such.

Just like the aviation industry has had an excellent track record in managing the danger, so has the nuclear industry. Just look at the number of victims of nuclear in the past 30 years. One (1) dead at Fukushima.

Chernobyl killed thousands, but it's as relevant to the safety of the industry in 2021 as a 1950s Antonov is to an Airbus.

We're not talking about building _new_ plants here. We're talking about maintaining the current fleet. Is this expensive? Yes. But what's the alternative? Burning coal and importing gas? This should simply be the cost of transitioning off fossil fuels. Once renewables are scalable and reliable, there will be no reason to build nuclear plants. Progress over perfection.

> But what's the alternative? Burning coal and importing gas?

Energy storage. See my last paragraph.

It's where a considerable amount of research and capital investment has been going and there are already numerous systems in use. Tesla's grid-scale batteries, pumped hydro around the world in numerous locations including the US, UK, Australia, and Europe.

Iron chemistry liquid batteries are in private commercial and grid use right now, likely to see widespread adoption in the coming years. It's cheap to manufacture, nontoxic, easily serviced, easily scaled.

Also, you can phone up your local solar installer today and get a battery storage system for your house or business. Some require a grid, others have transfer switches and will happily run off-grid. This has been the case for a number of years now.

Thank you for taking the time to go into the details on this! I‘m still sitting on the fence on this issue, because it‘s obviously massively complex and one rarely hears a decently argued take on it (and I don‘t have time to study nuclear engineering and electricity economics). But I think your comment helped me to understand just a little bit more about what‘s involved…

Just a nitpick:

> Everything about nuclear is slow, difficult, expensive, dangerous.

While this might not be true for the latest generation of reactors in development (of which ofcourse no failures are know because they don't exist) it applies well to the current nuclear infrastructure Germany has.

Does the cost include full lifecycle analysis?

For instance, wind requires mining huge quantities of rare earth metals in open-air hellscapes in Mongolia, referred to as "the worst place on earth." [1] The two hundred meter tall towers and their giant blades are also built of fiberglass (an epoxy/glass mix) which cannot be recycled and are instead buried. [2]

Similarly solar panels are often made with cadmium and tellurium, and various other toxic chemicals which leech out of the panels when placed into landfills. The US for instance has no solar panel recycling mandate except in Washington State. The world already has a massive e-waste problem.

By 2050, there will be 78 million metric tons of solar panels to dispose of. [3]

Solar panels then have to be supplemented with vast quantities of lithium for temporary storage.

Solar and wind aren't "green" they're "less black."

Nuclear produces 2000 metric tons of waste per year in the US while amounting to 20% of the entire grid, 0.85TWh per year.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...

[3] https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

That first link was quite a read. Thanks for that.

Current wholesale electricity prices in Germany are $194/MWh:

https://www.energylive.cloud/

How much does Germany spend on the military? Cancel it, and spend the money on nuclear power. Otherwise Germany has a significant strategic weakness (gas imports) to Russia, its only realistic enemy.

Wholesale energy is priced by the marginal cost, gas peaker plants come in at $150 - $200/MWh so not a surprising price to level out on.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

I don't think canceling an already tight military budget in favor of a power source that could be devastating when hit by an airstrike is a good strategy

it wouldn't be devastating

>A meltdown or explosion at a nuclear facility could cause a large amount of radioactive material to be released into the environment.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RADIATIONP...

Ideally with passive containment, anything that blows up the container/automatic-cooler, is also going to physically blow up / spread out the rods too?

Big mess, sure, but no meltdown.

Also remember war is really bad no matter what. If someone blow up all the powerplants regardless of sort, a huge portion of people will die simply because the lack of electricity.

Russia supplies 55% of Germany's natural gas imports. Cut that off and say goodbye to manufacturing, electricity, heating.

Germany already spends so little on their military that they have been in breach of their NATO treaty obligations for years.

The expensive part about nuclear power is the initial construction.

The cost to keep a reactor that's already been built going is low.

Time component can’t be disregarded, though. You can build, operate and decommission a wind farm or a solar plant in the time it takes to sell the first watt from a nuclear plant.

The policy in question is what Germany should do about its current fleet.

Building new reactors is another question.

There aren't going to be any LWRs started and finished outside of China.

The LWR is doomed by the same thing that stopped the construction of coal burning plants circa 1980. Even if the heat was free, the capital cost of the steam turbine, heat exchangers and other parts that accept large amounts of low quality heat is too high. (Consider that the steam generators in a PWR are much bigger than the reactor core and have to be inside the reactor vessel, be earthquake-proof, ...)

Reactors that operate at a higher temperature such as the liquid metal fast reactor, molten salt reactor and high-temperature gas cooled reactor could be coupled to something like

https://www.swri.org/supercritical-carbon-dioxide-power-syst...

which fits in the employee break room in the turbine house at a conventional nuclear power plant. So long as water is not involved you can make the heat exchangers small as well, see

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5167622

There are difficult challenges to building any "4th generation" nuclear reactor, but they have a chance of being economically competitive, even without subsidies.

No. It is not worth noting any such thing.

The need to keep nuclear in the short term is based solely on the urgency of the climate crisis.

Cost is irrelevant in the face of extinction.

We have a couple centuries to figure out wind and solar economics if we convert all coal and gas to nuclear immediately.

Why is nuclear considered in contrast to solar and wind? Nuclear energy will allow humanity to move off of petrochemical energy sources much more quickly and given the looming ecological catastrophe the costs of nuclear energy are very reasonable.

But what if you put in the health en enviromental cost of nuclears direct competitor: coal.

Because at the moment, wind isn't doing so well, there being a wind-drought for the last few months and all.

Reuters journalists also probably say that the markets are efficient.

Out here in the real world, people are paying $200/MWh and hedge funds are making billions.

And wind/solar is also very expensive once you reach 20% and need storage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com