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 orthecreedence on Thursday March 11, 2021 @12:24PM (#26426543)
> you still need to buy the rights to the land where you mount them.

And you need to store the power somewhere for nights and cloudy days. Energy storage ain't cheap, or even feasible enough for an all-solar-and-wind power system. I don't know why solar advocates continuously ignore this point.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by pfdietz on Thursday March 11, 2021 @08:22PM (#26431221)
Batteries for short term storage, hydrogen (stored underground and burned in turbines) for long term storage. Combined cycle is 10% of the cost of a nuclear plant of the same capacity; simple cycle just 5%, so one can back up the entire grid with hydrogen and still pay lower capital cost than for a nuclear grid.

https://model.energy/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by credit_guy on Friday March 12, 2021 @02:02PM (#26439527)
Not according to the EIA ([1] page 8 Table 1b). The cost for 1 MWh of nuclear energy is $63 and for solar $30. The solar cost includes 4 hours of storage (no long term storage).

[1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear power looks to regain its footing 10 years after ... by pfdietz on Friday March 12, 2021 @04:01PM (#26440865)
That nuclear number has no credibility. AP1000 and the EPR were also promised to be cheaper, but were 2-3x times that.
[ Parent | on HN ]