Hacker News Reader

Comment by llsf | Hacker News Reader

Is comparing nuclear and renewable like apples and oranges ? One can run anytime, and the other depends on weather, time of day.

If we only had renewable the price of electricity would go up at night, when there is no sun or wind.

Unless to compare the GWh they included batteries for renewable, it is difficult to compare to nuclear.

View on HN

There is a reason China has 16 nuclear plants under construction, with plans to start many more, even though they have access to some of the cheapest wind and solar power in the world.

Yeah, they need a nuclear industry to build nuclear weapons, just like France.

I was wondering if you're aware that China possesses nuclear weapons and the reactors needed to produce more. Also, do you believe that all nuclear reactors function identically, being used for both power generation and weapon creation? And about France, what are your thoughts on their nuclear policies? Do you feel they are continuously producing weapons, or is there just a misunderstanding about nuclear power as a political issue leading to snap judgments?

If you want nuclear weapons it's a good idea to have a nuclear industry so that you have engineers familiar with the relevant technology. I'm not implying that (all) nuclear power plants are weapons factories.

In the sense that they both feed the grid, no. In the sense that they have different costs, risks, yes.

Personally I think that the question, "Which is better?" is pointless. It's much more interesting to ask, "What proportion of each generation method should we target?"

It's then just question of "Where would you put a pin in the simplex of generation proportion?"

The question of the mix is interesting, and probably more complex than it looks as we might have to take the "electrification" of industries, transportation, heating, etc. over time into consideration.

If EV become more popular, if trucks and trains start to use more electricity, if heat-pumps become more popular, etc. the demand for electricity would grow over what the country is currently using. So new capacity would be needed, and electricity would be even more critical and would require to be more reliable than ever before.

That is why nuclear has a part to play to make the grid stable and reliable, on top of renewable deployment.

Absolutely, designing a mix for today's demand is guaranteed failure.

Designing a mix for a target date with predicted demand characteristics actually has a shot at working. We can make quantified statements about distribution estimates for demand that includes quantified variability and create a mix target that meets our tolerance for risk, cost, and sustainability.

I frankly think that armchair debate over solar vs nuclear - which is 99% of these discussions - has exactly zero probability at arriving at an optimal mix. Pigeon, chessboard, &c.

I agree this is armchair debate.

The article is made by a business journalist on an Australian report, with a catchy title. It is a complex subject.

Who says there is no wind at night?

There is no wind at night because it can't see where it's going.

No one.

We did not say that there is no wind at night, but it is possible to have no wind some nights. And since at night there is no sun, that is why the price of electricity would go up, if there were not nuclear (or gas/coal) to run during those nights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com