Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobp100 | Hacker News Reader

Solar is much cheaper than nuclear. Italian new builds need to add solar panels.

Nuclear isn’t a bad option too. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket

The major point here is that nuclear is controllable energy type while solar is not. So comparing only the price is apples to oranges comparison. Most human energy consumers need energy with a fixed rate and all physical metrics withing a tight margin. To prouduce that with only solar energy is impossible.

This means you have to build other energy sources into the grid like gas turbines to be able to control the grid. So if you really want to compare energy prices than you have to look into the TCO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/11q58pe/price_trend...

Solar + batteries is still cheaper than nuclear

In what timeframe?

Solar panels last 20-25 years. Nuclear power plants last for 50+ years and use fraction of the space that solar. It is hard to believe that the TCO is lower. Usually people just looking at the price in the short term and comparing that. Batteries are a whole different can of worms. Super toxic and you need a high volume of those because the energy density is much lower.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density

Space isn't really an issue. There's many places that are no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides.

Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated.

And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.

> no good for building but are great for solar, like mountainsides.

And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?

> Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too

How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources?

> And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.

Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?

Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper, than maintaining a nuclear reactor and disposing safely the waste.

Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.

See how you decided to completely ignore my question. But I like that on top of that, batteries are not cheap either

See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want?

Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.

> See how I am still free to ignore any question you asked and answer just what I want?

It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it

It is a common trait of internet commentators, who are not paid for your education.

"And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?"

Why should I feel it as my duty to answer that specific question to you? Seriously curious.

Because context matters, and the context of the comment you replied to was literally "oh, we should just build solar panels on mountainsides which are not good for other types of building": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43254135

So the conversation, in context, is literally this:

---

Someone: we should build panels on mountainsides

Me: how much more expensive will building and maintaining them will be?

You: Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper than maintaining nuclear. Also batteries will need to become cheaper

Me: Erm... That doesn't answer my question, and on top of that you're admitting batteries are not cheap either

---

But, again, this is on par with what I expect in such discussions

> Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper,

Citization needed. Actually we do not know and we are figuring this out.

Few examples:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpJKM65tsCo

- https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/weather/worlds-largest-float...

Batteries would need to be safer, less toxic and less prone to be mined by children in Africa, also orders of magnitude more energy dense.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...

and in 0-10 years solar make infinitely more power than a nuclear plant.

Absolutely. And we can finally infent FTL and fly back in time to stop nuclear to begin with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In the timeframe of the duration of the installation. (Total cost for the whole project + total costs for fuels & maintainance) / (kW generated * lifetime of the project)

Again, comparing apples to oranges.

If 50 years we need to build a single nuclear plant while you have to build twice the solar capacity I doubt that solar come out cheaper.

It literally does come out cheaper. It’s referred to as the LCOE - you can look at the data yourself

The lifetime difference is a standard talking point that sounds good if you don't understand economics but doesn't make a significant difference. It's the latest attempt to avoid having to acknowledge the completely bizarre costs of new nuclear built power through bad math.

CSIRO with GenCost included it in this year's report.

Because capital loses so much value over 80 years ("60 years + construction time) the only people who refer to the potential lifespan are people who don't understand economics. In this, we of course forget that the average nuclear power plant was in operation for 26 years before it closed.

Table 2.1:

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...

The difference a completely absurd lifespan makes is a 10% cost reduction. When each plant requires tens of billions in subsidies a 10% cost reduction is still... tens of billions in subsidies.

Sure, but given that hypothetical new nuclear plants would become effective in a decade or more from now, and that we already have an energy crisis, one would expect Italy to first ramp up the fastest option (solar).

Italy (and others) could (and should) do both.

Only thinking in terms of cost is short vision IMO. What happens if in 20/30 years you need to dramatically ramp up the energy generation (maybe everyone will drive electric, maybe house heating will be electric, maybe someone will come up with a new tech that requires a huge amount of energy, ...) and you already covered most of the roofs? or panels and batteries are at their end of life and you need massive investments just to keep up with the status quo?

I woulnd't go in a fight with a fist tied behing my back, and global warming is one of the biggest fights we must face.

I didn't say we shouldn't do both, just that since we are already in an energy crisis, ramping up solar very quickly should be a priority, compared to nuclear plants. Nuclear plants will improve the lives of our children, solar will improve our own lives. The problem is that I'm not hearing anything about solar investments from the Italian government.

Another great move would be to stop the warmongering and to start buying gas from Russia, while we work on solar and nuclear.

I agree in spirit, but given the massive cost premium of nuke power and the impossibility of insurance, the only way new nukes are going to get built in the west is via state guarantees /subsidies. That means higher taxes, or forcing citizens to pay much higher power rates for ~50 years. Both will be very unpopular, especially as green power continues to get cheaper and cheaper

Reply on news.ycombinator.com