News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after Fukushima. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by realusername on Thursday March 11, 2021 @04:09AM (#26421917)
> If you want to replace gas peaker plants with nuclear then you need to build up enough nuclear capacity to replace all other intermittent electricity producers.

Why even build all those intermittent electricity producers in the first place then? It sounds like problem searching for a solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by Qwertious on Thursday March 11, 2021 @09:53AM (#26424577)
>Why even build all those intermittent electricity producers in the first place then?

Because they're the cheapest. All else being equal, you want most of your grid to be dirt-cheap, and the last 10% can be crazy expensive and you'll still end up ahead.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by Aachen on Thursday March 11, 2021 @08:09AM (#26423562)
Because we have no choice. We ideally need better storage solutions or something like cheaper fission to keep the price of energy down, but we need to avoid a climate disaster even more to keep the price of living down.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by pfdietz on Sunday March 14, 2021 @10:19AM (#26455656)
> Why even build all those intermittent electricity producers in the first place then?

Cost a new nuclear power plant in the US: $10,000/kW

Cost a combined cycle gas turbine power plant: $1,000/kW

Cost a simple cycle gas turbine power plant: $400/kW

[ Parent | on HN ]