Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by godelski | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done

Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1].

I'm not sure why comments (for and against nuclear/renewables) with energy ignore this factor. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't homogeneously distributed around the globe (let alone the US) nor through time. The conversations always devolve into "why do we need nuclear when there's so much sun" vs "baseloads."

The truth is that you should be using whichever resource best matches your environment. If you can get away without nuclear, that's totally cool. If you can't, then nuclear is a far better option than coal or gas. That's about it, and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. Pro nuclear is supposed to mean that nuclear tech is on the table. It shouldn't mean "nuclear for everything" or "nuclear everywhere." Just use whatever works in your area and gives you the cheapest and most reliable power (under the constraint of zero operating emissions). Anything else is typically not meaningful discourse unless we're willing to dig way deep into the nuances and everyone involved has a decent amount of expertise on the subject (I'm guessing most of us don't). There's so many constraints that go into power systems (reliability, land usage, access, population density, resource access, diversification, etc) that are never discussed in these forums I just don't think we can meaningfully discuss except at the high abstract level and mostly appeal to experts. Which as far as I'm aware most experts say "nuclear is better than coal and gas. Let's do as much as we can with hydro, wind, and solar, and if that's not enough nuclear is the next best option."

[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-fou...

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...

While there certainly are local differences, with the exception of Alaska basically no part of the US is infeasible for solar. As the prices for panels fall, the region of economic usage extends northwards. Germany does very well with solar and the southmost regions start at 48 degrees north.

I literally link maps that show how some areas in the US have a harder time and would require substantially more build out. These same areas have nonhomogeneous sun distribution throughout the year too, with pretty drastic differences. If you require an extra 20-30% more panels, other options become more attractive. If you have longer winters with ever increasing snow storms, other options look better. If you are in a population dense area, something with a small footprint is attractive and with a trade-off. You don't want long power lines that would get cut and shut down your whole city. Nuclear's problem is it's price. But a few factors or trade-offs can make it competitive. Including just a $10/ton carbon tax.

Again, I'm not sure why were arguing as if it's renewables vs nuclear. You use whatever is best for your area and matches your needs. All I'm arguing is that nuclear can be advantageous in _some_ situations. (If you think nuclear for everything, or even solar for everything, your ideas about energy are very naive).

I don't deny that there are huge local variations in solar performance across the US. My point is: in most places it is economically feasible. As most places are still much better than Germany in that respect and it works well here. If in some places it makes more sense to invest e.g. in wind or water, that might be. But even in those, it is picking up low-hanging fruit to put solar cells on suitable rooftops for example. As they are going to produce energy for cheap.

It's quite ironic that you chose Germany as an example right when they got into hot water over their massive gas dependency on Russia. Compare and contrast with France with their sizeable nuclear fleet.

Nothing ironic about it, one has little to do with the other. My statement is, that solar energy is economic all over Germany. There are of course local variations in productivity, but all over Germany it produces electricity at costs which are very competitive. But also there is a very apparent gradient across Germany, solar is more productive in the south and consequentially more popular there, wind in the more windy regions. Still both are used across the whole country because they work best in a mix.

German energy politics is an entirely different matter. And actually the main complaint about it is: the switch to renewables wasn't done quickly enough. Nuclear always was the smaller part of energy production in Germany, so even if no power plant had been shut down, the question would still stand: where would 80% of the energy come from. Relying on fossil fuels for that is definitely wrong, even more so, if you tie yourself to one very problematic supplier.

And please look into all the huge problems France currently faces about their energy production before cheering for them! The good side is, the largest part of the energy mix is nuclear, so it is low in carbon production. That is the good news. The bad news is, that the energy crisis in central Europe was basically started by several nuclear power plants in France being taken off the grid at the same time as the need for emergency repairs appeared. Electricity in France currently is quite expensive, often more so than in Germany. Long term France has the problem that the nuclear fleet is aging. A lot of reactors are only operating because their life span has been extended. Currently there are no realistic concepts of replacing them, so France needs to hurry to expand their renewables considerably, which so far they haven't been doing.

> Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1].

Isn't that solvable with HVDC links?

I agree with GP at this point it is mostly a budget, political will, manufacturing problem.

> Isn't that solvable with HVDC links?

No, because then you have the Russia situation times ten - namely that a foreign power can cripple your society at will.

It sure is solvable with HVDC links, but upgrading infrastructure isn’t free. That cost would need to be included when comparing it against nuclear

Nuclear power still costs more. It's clean and consistent but almost absurdly expensive compared to solar, wind, pumped storage, batteries and interconnectors.

The entire point of ThorCon is to try to make nuclear more cost effective. If their numbers are to be believed, from their website:

> The shipyard estimate supports our estimates that ThorCon power plants can be mass produced by shipyards at costs of $800/kW to $1000/kW

$1000/kW, or $1/W, is roughly the cost of utility-scale solar these days (SEIA reported $0.89/W for Q1 2021)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com