Hacker News Reader

Comment by concordDance | Hacker News Reader

Last I checked switching to pure renewables would triple electricity costs due to storage needs.

You'd be way better off spending that money on nuclear (including accident cleanup) and healthcare.

Given that nuclear on marginal price markets would require 5-8x the costs from renewables that is a win? Stop living in the 70s.

Actually model it. Go look at gridwatch and use the graphs to calculate total storage needs if using a wind-solar mix, then check out the US department of energy 2019 report on energy storage solution characteristics.

Calculated total cost when I did it would have tripled UK electricity prices.

Pure French nuclear, on the other hand, resulted in a mere 30% increase in electricity prices.

French existing nuclear paid for completely opaquely to support the military nuclear program.

Now input Flamanville 3 costs for your buildout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

Yes, over regulation leads to massively spiraling costs as delays lead to financing issues (both interest and uncertainty), knowledge loss, project management timing issues, etc etc

And yet even with that you're getting 400 billion kWh over its 40 year lifespan for €13 billion construction costs (multiply by 1.5 for lifetime costs), for electricity production price of €0.05 per kWh. Which is honestly decent.

Btw: did you actually do the calculation before posting?

Hahahahaha. Yeah, a 20 year project + 40 year lifespan and you get a "decent" number. You are guessing about 2083.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Your reply seems to just be empty mockery unworthy of you. Do you dispute the figures I gave? Do you think the price given makes nuclear nonviable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com