Hacker News Reader

Comment by einrealist | Hacker News Reader

I am glad that we are afraid. The real costs (no subsidies, fuel, waste and dismantling fully paid by owner) of nuclear are just too high. Hinkley Point in the UK is a warning. Investments are far more effective in solar, wind and storage capabilities. Market prices reflect that very well already.

View on HN

Solar in Germany makes no sense. A third of the year the country is plunged into darkness. Ultra high voltage power lines and solar farms from Morocco which has pretty much perfect weather year round for solar would be a much better investment but then there is the question of national security risk like NS2

Are you arguing from your gut, or do you actually have some numbers? From all I read, wind and solar are significantly cheaper than nuclear power, with costs of solar expected to keep decreasing.

Yes, I have some numbers. Wholesale electricity costs since 2020 have repeatedly exceeded 700 - SEVEN HUNDRED - Euros per MWh (1). Because it was dark and still, a condition every single European in the last ten thousand years has known to exist. That's your number.

I won't ask you what impact you think that has on, say, steelmaking, because I've lived it. I've picked the tenders and the Euro steel was not competitive with Chinese steel if it was free, due to uncertainty in delivery date.

China spent approx 2x Hinkley Point on nuclear. It has 30 GW of capacity in return. That works in winter. I would do nasty things to get that for my country.

(1) Naturally, French nuclear is literally not allowed to access this price, and must sell at 45. Because FREE MARKET.

I don't see how your numbers (for which a source and some additional context would be appreciated) support your original point ("solar in Germany makes no sense").

As an actual counterpoint, please consider this recent study by Fraunhofer ISE [1], which provides average generation costs for various types of power plants. Even with current battery prices, large scale PV plants supported by battery systems are significantly cheaper than coal, gas and nuclear plants -- and this advantage is expected to increase with falling prices of both battery storage and PV systems.

[1] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...

There is a gigantic difference in solar irradiation between winter and summer

https://weatherspark.com/d/148124/12/22/Average-Weather-on-D...

On the other hand we could have much higher numbers of wind powered electricity if folks didn't spent their time doing lawsuits to prevent them being built.

How many places are there with solar + wind providing the baseload capacity?

I'm all in favor of solar and wind power. But they need batteries to be useful around the clock. The batteries are $100 / kWh, and this number dwarfs the cost of solar installations proper.

Storage capacity has to be built along with solar and wind parks. Its already happening. But more investments are required ("more effective" than nuclear). And the electric grid must be decentralized further to accommodate decentralized storage (from your wall-box at home to industrial storage facilities). And it must not stop at borders.

Regenerative energy already surpassed all other means of energy production in 2024: https://www.bdew.de/media/documents/2024_12_18_Die_Energieve...

Battery prices are declining for some time now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-10/electric-...

And even larger storage capabilities are built: https://standort-sachsen.de/de/aktuelles/news/detail/n1474-g...

(I am actually working for a grid operator)

No it doesn't and it isn't.

If you're working for a grid operator tell me how many TWh you need to sustain a 1-in-20 - A 1-in-goddamn-20 - dunkelflaute in a single large European nation, multiplied by cost of storage. Not the "decline", the absolute cost, and what percentage of GDP it would be. Compare and contrast to military expenditure at a time of near-war.

I also know these numbers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com