zlacker

>>Capsta+(OP)
What I never understood was how France gets 70-75% of their electricity from Nuclear, yet their energy prices aren't "too cheap to meter", and while cheaper than their neighbors, don't really raise any eyebrows. Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future?

>>Ecomme+1f
I'm confused. The way you've phrased this certainly doesn't sound like it couldn't be the future.

>>robert+Cf
I've heard for years that if we just had "tons" of Nuclear plants, our energy costs would essentially be too cheap to meter. Yet France is not experiencing this even at 75% Nuclear.

>>Ecomme+ug
As far as I know and even learned as a (since failed) physicist, a country needs a good mixture of energy sources. Mind you I went to a university that's nuclear energy focused and even they didn't advocate for full on only nuclear.

In my opinion, if someone says we should just have all nuclear, it means they are dealing in absolutes, maybe God in politics and debate, but they ignore that reality is much more complicated, as technology meets economics and politics (and much more).

(Again, AFAIK) nuclear energy is great when it comes to meeting the "baseline" requirements, roughly the level below which energy consumption of a region never drops. It is because nuclear energy cannot be scaled up and down quickly, so it's not adequate for peaks.

To balance the peaks and keep the network stable, you need energy sources that can increase their output in seconds (or less?).

That's also one of the issues with wind and solar, you can't choose when it is available and when it isn't, so coal etc is still needed to make sure that energy production and consumption is practically equal at all times.

>>serial+1j
Nuclear is very poor for baseline requirements. Baseline requirements should be met by the cheapest source and more expensive sources should only be added as required to follow demand.

>>bryanl+Kj
If you price in pollution, doesn't nuclear become the cheapest base load provider?

>>robert+lJ1
No, not even close.

>>bryanl+lT1
Fancy elaborating?

>>robert+1X2
Let's say the cost of pollution for a tonne of CO2 is about $100. Using some silly and outdated assumptions, solar power is listed at 41 g CO2 / kWh and therefore has a pollution "cost" of 0.4 cents. The cost of a kWh from a solar panel ranges from 0.5 - 4 cents, so adding the two together is still way under the cost per kWh of nuclear power whether or not you add the 12 g CO2 / kWh carbon footprint of nuclear power.

>>bryanl+L53
Solar power is not base load.