zlacker

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+(OP)
Where did you hear that? I've only ever heard about how nuclear is both capital and opex intensive and very expensive.

>>Ecomme+(OP)
You're remembering a (mis-)quote of a speech given in 1954[0].

And even if it weren't a misquote, "Living up to a quote from 1954" is not how we judge whether a power source is still worth investing in for the future.

[0] https://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2015/09/too-cheap-to-meter-t...

>>Ecomme+(OP)
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+x2
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.

>>WheatM+R
It was a common BS claim in the Reagan years, as to why we didn't need to invest in renewables back then. "Why bother, soon all this nuclear energy will basically be free".

This has nothing to do with what anyone actually said. Just ask any 60-something, mild conservative. The meme exists, even though the actual quote was slightly more mealy mouthed.

It was always nonsense anyway. Electricity generation is mostly a deregulated market in most places, so nobody would spend billions on a Nuclear plant that wasn't guaranteed to make back it's money. It was always a thought terminating cliche.

>>Ecomme+(OP)
If anyone told you that they were lying to you.

>>Ecomme+(OP)
Presumably once it gets cheap enough it becomes profitable to sell it internationally which caps the price?

Besides, you still have to pay back for the construction and the fuel, it's never gonna be free.

>>Ecomme+(OP)
The words of a human shouldn't necessarily represent reality, especially when the human in question is a politician and not a scientist. Your argument doesn't make much sense.

Furthermore, no one could have predicted the mass protests, scandals, and fears that nuclear energy has sparked over the decades. These factors have significantly reduced the hype and investment in the sector.

>>bryanl+g3
If you price in pollution, doesn't nuclear become the cheapest base load provider?

>>mrguyo+08
From Wikipedia[0], admittedly:

> Most reactors began construction by 1974; following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and changing economics, many planned projects were canceled. More than 100 orders for nuclear power reactors, many already under construction, were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s, bankrupting some companies.

How does that square with your recollection? Or were lots of nuclear power plants being constructed in the 1980s, and the article is very wrong?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

>>robert+Rs1
No, not even close.

>>bryanl+RC1
Fancy elaborating?

>>robert+xG2
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+hP2
Solar power is not base load.

>>robert+ig4
Neither is nuclear. You're commenting on an article where France is turning off their nuclear power plants because they have too much solar energy. If they're turning them off, they're not baseload generation.