Hacker News Reader

Comment by onlyrealcuzzo | Hacker News Reader

Yes, why not both?

Money is fungible. Each dollar spent on nuke generating capacity is that dollar not spent on several times as much renewable generating capacity.

Not when you take the capacity factor into account. Nuclear reactors have far higher capacity factors than wind and solar.

Even after you take capacity factor into account.

And the cost of the backup power for when wind and solar don't generate enough?

Yes.

The most expensive serious storage solution is LiIon, and even that's merely the same cost (or at least, the bell curves of their prices mostly overlap) as an equivalent nuclear reactor.

(I'm deliberately ignoring any claims about future battery costs; while I'm expecting them to come down, they don't need to in order to make this argument).

"and even that's merely the same cost (or at least, the bell curves of their prices mostly overlap) as an equivalent nuclear reactor."

citation needed.

• PV utility scale with battery, Germany, €55-€100/MWh, (2021): https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-o...

• LCOE for nuclear, analysis based on new nuclear worldwide but priced in Euros, €67-€82/MWh, (2020): https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/final_repor... page 40-41

Money is fictional - only raw resources, manufacturing fapacity and climate disaster are real.

I thought this should be clear to everyone today, when energy price whent up 10x because yoy can print euros but can't print jeoules of energy or natural gas.

Renewables and nuclear use different resources and manufacturing capacities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com