Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by ben_w on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @08:01AM (#41847630)

Today's values, from what I've seen, this country could run on just wind if it had 10x more than now, but it doesn't really need that in isolation, it's just that PV was harder to judge because the graph wasn't even close to a flat line.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/power/live-eu-electricity-gener...

> New solar/wind will not be able to sell energy at negative prices unless they get subsidies.

They already do, in good weather.

> 20bn/yr for price subsidies and their grid is far from overcapacity

And how much of that was for a guaranteed price made way back when the stuff was still expensive?

New PV is, by itself, the single cheapest source of electricity; even adding on batteries only takes it up to somewhere between gas and nuclear depending on the specifics.

> and that doesn't account for other subsidy types like for transmission for renewables

How's that a subsidy? I've not seen the breakdown of bill costs here, but back in the UK there was a split between connection cost and use cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by Moldoteck on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @08:41AM (#41847963)

transmission upgrades are needed for renewables due to their distributed nature https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-specia...

> They already do, in good weather.

We haven't reached yet such renewable market penetration to get this problem. It'll happen when a lot of days, 10 day hours will be covered by renewable output.

> And how much of that was for a guaranteed price made way back when the stuff was still expensive?

I have no idea how are these are distributed. Do you have a link for recent vs old projects?

[ Parent | on HN ]