Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jabpattern7's commentslogin

It's strange to see Germany so against nuclear, but happily buying all that clean nuclear energy from it's neighbour. Nuclear accidents don't care about borders, you'd think if they really meant what they preached they'd boycott their closest nuclear plants aswell


In bavaria, chernobyl was an event my parents generation fully experienced.

It was very clear (especially when you watch the old reports, i did a presentation about this in school) people didn't know a lot about nuclear and how to act upon an accident. Kids were not allowed to play on playgrounds, food had to be washed etc.

Even today if you shoot a dear, you have to check it for radiation!

its not strange.

And another reason why politics are stupid: Bavaria is reigned by the CSU. They have the majority for a very long time and the partner CDU was in power for over 16 years. None of them made any long term nuclear power strategy ever.

No one cared to plan longterm enough at all. Building nuclear is not easy and its a lot harder in a country like germany were we want to be extra save.

Even the newest europeon nuclear power plants take very long time. The last one took i think 18 years instead of 10?


It's "not in my backyard" politics, but Europe is full of that.


Backed by batteries is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Batteries required to make them viable are never included in the LCOEs for renewable, because it'd make them ridiculously more expensive than nuclear. The problem is we need power now, all the time. It's much easier to develop new technologies when the lights are still on.


Even backed by batteries renewables are still winning. How good things look depends on how much battery you decide to include, but fortunately we don't need that much battery, especially while we still have some legacy dispatchable generation.

It "helps" that nuclear is just so slow and expensive to get going that everything else just ends up looking pretty good. If it were cheap, fast and safe that would have been great, though.


Lazard had figures that include a couple of hours of storage for years. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost...


It's not true that batteries are required to make renewables work.

In Australia solar is popular because it produces power at the same time it is needed for A/C, computers, manufacturing etc.

There really isn't the need for huge amounts of baseload power. Hence why batteries are used.


The difference being nuclear only needs something to cover the peak, whilst renewable needs capacity to cover 100% of production because of wild variability.


Which when simulating a carbon neutral Danish grid leads to nuclear power needing a cost reduction of 85% to even enter the picture.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...


The difference between minimum and maximum demand is not that far from 100%.


Well, if you believe that 25-33% isn't that far from 100%, then you would be right.

- CAISO forecast for today [1]: peak 28.8GW, low 21.5GW

- France forecast for today [2]: peak 52.7GW, low 35.5GW

[1]: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook [2]: https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-consommation-delectric...


You shouldn’t consider just one day, you should at least look at a time frame comparable to the construction time of your power source of choice.


How about you give me one day where low point is close to 0% as you claimed.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: