Hacker News Reader

Comment by silexia | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear is far superior as you don't need batteries and can have 24/7 reliable power. Cut the artificial costs caused by insane regulation and nuclear is the safest and most cost effective solution.

View on HN

Not being able (or willing) to turn turn nukes down or off to load-follow makes them sometimes as difficult to work with as intermittents. None in the GB grid load-follow, though one can AFAIK. And nukes need refuelling, so you need to fill in those generation gaps. And one of the last two big grid stumbles in the GB (UK) in the last ~20Y was caused by a big nuke (Sizewell B) tripping, so nukes can be big single points of failure too.

Note: I am pro nukes in the mix, but nukes have difficult points too.

I'm generally pro nuclear and think it should be a significant part of the energy mix. But an interesting point is that the floor price of nuclear is the cost of the turbines, which are surprisingly expensive, and aren't really getting cheaper. Solar can go much cheaper than that, potentially at least. More on this point in the recent Casey Handmer interview of Dwarkesh.

There are two approved sites for AP1000 reactors to be built, Turkey Point in FL and Summer in SC, all regulatory hurdles have been passed. Yet no one wants to take the risk to build them, not because of regulation but because industry can't control construction costs.

Nuclear is far inferior in that it is too costly, despite that putative advantage. The value of being able to run 24/7 doesn't make up for the unaffordably high cost of building the plants.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com