Hacker News Reader

Comment by DennisP | Hacker News Reader

Maybe not, if the alternative is installing enough battery to charge most people's electric cars at night.

My state's grid is over half nuclear, and our electric rates are not high.

Good news! The very article we're discussing explains why you don't have to install enough batteries to charge most people's electric cars at night.

Right, and all it will take is "major investments and changes in charging habits." Note those major investments are seldom accounted for when people talk about solar cost.

Speaking of which, California is 17% solar, 8% wind, and 7% hydro[1], and their retail electricity costs 19.9 cents/kWh.[2]

South Carolina is 58% nuclear, 0.1% solar, no wind, and 2% hydro,[3] and their retail electricity costs 12.9 cents/kWh.[2]

It's almost like solar is super cheap on the margins, but it's easier to make a cheap grid with lots of nuclear than lots of solar....nah, that can't be it.

[1] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

[2] https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

[3] https://energy.sc.gov/node/3067

All the nuclear plants in S.C. are old. The most recently completed one came online in 1986. Power from old depreciated plant can indeed be cheap (although sometimes not cheap enough; TMI 1 was cash flow negative the last six years it was in operation). Trying to REPLACE those plants, or build new ones to provide additional power, is another matter entirely. Look at the sad experience at V. C. Summer, also in S.C.

A similar story is playing out in France, with Flamanville 3.

Where's the part where you have to install enough batteries to charge most electric cars at night? That was your scenario.

Good choice of states, though: I grew up in SC and live in California. California uses time-of-day rates to nudge people away from charging during the early evening peak.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com