Solar + batteries is still cheaper than nuclear
Solar panels last 20-25 years. Nuclear power plants last for 50+ years and use fraction of the space that solar. It is hard to believe that the TCO is lower. Usually people just looking at the price in the short term and comparing that. Batteries are a whole different can of worms. Super toxic and you need a high volume of those because the energy density is much lower.
Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too. It's much less densely populated.
And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?
> Besides, if the Netherlands can have solar then Italy can too
How much solar are they building in comparison to other sources?
> And nuclear lasts 50+ years with constant maintenance, which is really expensive.
Unlike solar panels built on mountainsides which are not suitable for other types of buildings?
Batteries would need to be cheaper, that is all that is needed for italy. In the south, they have sun all year around.
Which would be: there is not really a need for stationary batteries to be expensive.
It's a very common tactic by renewables maximalists, and I'm very familiar with it
"And what's the cost of building on a mountainside, and how much is maintenance?"
Why should I feel it as my duty to answer that specific question to you? Seriously curious.
So the conversation, in context, is literally this:
---
Someone: we should build panels on mountainsides
Me: how much more expensive will building and maintaining them will be?
You: Maintaining solar panels will be always way, way, waaay cheaper than maintaining nuclear. Also batteries will need to become cheaper
Me: Erm... That doesn't answer my question, and on top of that you're admitting batteries are not cheap either
---
But, again, this is on par with what I expect in such discussions
Citization needed. Actually we do not know and we are figuring this out.
Few examples:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpJKM65tsCo
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/weather/worlds-largest-float...
Batteries would need to be safer, less toxic and less prone to be mined by children in Africa, also orders of magnitude more energy dense.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...
If 50 years we need to build a single nuclear plant while you have to build twice the solar capacity I doubt that solar come out cheaper.
CSIRO with GenCost included it in this year's report.
Because capital loses so much value over 80 years ("60 years + construction time) the only people who refer to the potential lifespan are people who don't understand economics. In this, we of course forget that the average nuclear power plant was in operation for 26 years before it closed.
Table 2.1:
https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25Co...
The difference a completely absurd lifespan makes is a 10% cost reduction. When each plant requires tens of billions in subsidies a 10% cost reduction is still... tens of billions in subsidies.