Hacker News Reader

Comment by ViewTrick1002 | Hacker News Reader

Which means nuclear and renewables are the worst possible companions imaginable.

Nuclear and renewables compete for the same slice of the grid. The cheapest most inflexible where all other power generation has to adapt to their demands. They are fundamentally incompatible.

For every passing year more existing reactors will spend more time turned off because the power they produce is too expensive.

Let alone insanely expensive new builds.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/energy-...

Batteries are here now, and delivering nuclear scale energy day in and day out in California.

https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/

View on HN

The production cost of 'renewable' electricity (RE) is increasingly lower than that of nuclear. So when they produce, they are and will be preferred.

This will reduce the effective load factor of nuclear power and therefore increase its production cost (it is only profitable with a high load factor), with a strong feedback.

It gets worse because, on the technical level and despite some progress, nuclear power cannot (due to technical limitation and for safety-related reasons) adjust its production ("load following") to always exactly match demand.

This will promote the deployment of an RE system based on a continental a mix (wind, solar, etc.), smart grid, clean backup (green hydrogen), storage, etc. which will reduce the variability of its production (intermittency effect) so nuclear power will be less and less useful and more and more expensive.

The effect on nuclear is easy to predict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg

I’m not sure why you seem to think nuclear and renewables are competing, but you’re just objectively wrong. Non-consistent and on-demand power generation literally go hand-in-hand. There are coal power plants that rarely turn on because they are only turned on when the grid needs to offset peaks, something that cannot be done with current renewables, even with your incredibly expensive batteries (which are mostly going into EVs anyway, and thus are a moot point.

Additionally, California is ideal for solar panels, but I assume you haven’t put even an ounce of thought into how New York or Chicago will handle it, have you?

There is a misconception that won't die, that nuclear can't do anything but baseload.

do you happen to know why we can't dump the energy into something like smelting, desalination or other heavy industry?

I am uniformed on this, but those industries likely take time to scale up. A large scale desalination plant requires a significant amount of infrastructure.

The question is also: Where are you building it?

No one will want anything from your desalination plant in Norway, and shipping water is not a thing because it becomes too expensive.

The next problem is energy cost vs. duty cycle. The less you run due to only utilizing cheap prices the higher the impact of fixed costs on your business.

>shipping water is not a thing because it becomes too expensive.

Except for a significant portion of the GDP of Fiji

Smelting cant base their production on when excess energy might be available. They need that energy now. Desalination might be a good sink but again, if water is needed now and there's no excess then what? That's why we have base load.

Because every industry has capital costs that you want to repay by using it as much as you can.

There is a very small amount of people working on low-capital industries (normally with higher operational costs), and they seem to be close to some gain here or there. But almost all of our knowledge is biased against turning things off.

> Because every industry has capital costs that you want to repay by using it as much as you can.

that's the bit I don't quite understand - yes, in a simple economic model where you want the numbers to go brrr, it makes sense, but is there a physical limit? could a country decide to own the big facility and use the excess electricity and sell the results to commercial ventures? the government can afford to have a piece of land taken that doesn't return a profit 100% of the time?

Or it will be used for interconnector exports, to power battery storage, hydrogen production and synthetic fuel production.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com