Renewables + storage is also, when combined, a baseload tech.
If you are implying nuclear fills a niche on the grid that cannot be filled by renewables + storage, you're mistaken.
There are lots of examples of pumping water up into reservoirs when electricity is plentiful so it can be released when electricity is scarce, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
I have to love this sentiment, especially on HN. Because prices don't decline dramatically over time for any technology, right? Or if they do, then the safest thing to do is assume the future will see no continuing of trends of reductions, right? /s
Thats gonna generate >1MWh of electricity per year easily (probably closer to 2MW even), and with spot pricing for electricity at ~$100/MWh (Europe), this pays off within a decade easily.
Provide numbers if you disagree.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43414219 (citations)
Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Prices See Largest Drop Since 2017, Falling to $115 per Kilowatt-Hour: BloombergNEF - https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... - December 10, 2024
Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy+ - https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
Solar / wind + huge batteries + huge transmission lines would compare: capture sunlight in places like Bulgaria or Greece, feed places like Norway or Britain. But this is way more disruptive, and likely expensive, than a nuclear power plant.
Well, nuclear is also expensive, but it's partly regulation, partly nuclear being bespoke in many cases, while solar panels currently enjoy enormous economy of scale.
I all for nuclear, for the record.
Also all for nuclear, but decentralized renewables are great.
I'm a fan of the SMR idea although it turns out that it's less economic than people thought at the smaller sizes anyhow. I'm also very interested in the fusion startups............BUT we have to solve the climate problem now -- yesterday if it were possible.
If there's something to pour money into, it's battery storage, both building much more of it, and developing cheaper variants of it. We need the cost of LiFePO4 batteries to fall as dramatically as the cost of solar panels did. Then renewables will make much bigger inroads into the grid in a lot of places.
...for example!
"LONDON – 15 October, 2024 – Highview Power, a leading provider of long-duration energy storage (LDES) technology, announced today that its plans to develop four new 2.5GWh power plants in the UK by 2030, have taken a crucial step forward following the launch of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ’s) new investment support scheme. The scheme will use a “cap and floor” mechanism which will unlock the next stage of investment in the multi-billion-pound LDES programme, enabling the technologies vast potential to underpin UK decarbonisation.
Two of the 2.5GWh plants will deliver more storage than all of the UK’s existing battery storage, using 100% sustainable technology, with a 40-year lifespan. The addition of these four plants by 2030 means the government’s target to achieve a net zero grid by 2030 is achievable. Two of the 2.5GWh plants will be in Scotland and the other two in England. The first new plant will be located in Hunterston, Scotland."
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-...
Judging by what China is doing, renewables have soundly defeated nuclear. It's not clear why they're building any new nuclear plants now. Probably organizational inertia?
Especially the whole steam turbine/generator tech is a huge synergy for them (because all their coal plants need basically the same), and gutting suppliers by scaling back nuclear ambitions could have highly detrimental side-effects there.
Coal power is still the back-bone of their grid, and provides basically all the dispatchability (for now).
I think the big incoming challenge for renewables will be surpassing the 70%-ish percent mark (of produced electricity), because at that point intermittency is gonna become much more challenging (it's an easy problem as long as you can just down-regulate existing plants-- buffering with batteries is significantly more expensive, and they don't have a lot of gas either, which works pretty well for this).
I'm pretty confident that battery progress is gonna keep pace, and other countries are already way further in the switch to renewables anyway; China will be able to get free lessions there (e.g. Germany).
I'll also note that if renewables have reached 70%, the residual demand will be so uneven that new nuclear won't make any sense, as it won't be possible to keep it running most of the time. Too often renewables will be delivering 100% of demand and nuclear will have no market.
As renewables grow, prices become spikier. So what's wanted is some source with low capex that can jump in an exploit these spikes. Gas peakers are an example, but eventually the gas can be something other than natural gas (if NG is taxed for its CO2). Green hydrogen may be the best bet for the 100% renewable end game.
Whether it is "disruptive" doesn't matter. What matters is cost. Renewables + storage look to be much cheaper than nuclear in the best places and at least competitive in the worst.
There was an insightful post a little while ago about people liking nuclear because of a bias toward simple solutions. It reminded me of the adage "for any problem, there's a solution that's simple, straightforward... and wrong." The economy is quite willing to optimize for more complex solutions if this ends up saving money. "Keep it simple, stupid (KISS)" doesn't apply at the level of the whole economy.