Awkward_moments OP t1_iuft6px wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:11 AM

Reply to comment by Southern-Trip-1102 in The economics of overproducing renewable energy by Awkward_moments

I disagree. Even if governments pay for nuclear then they are still spending money which has to come from taxes or borrowing. So that still costs the economy. That money could be better spend on other things like insulation, heat pumps, public transport etc. So I don't think getting the government to pay for nuclear has any benefits. Also roll out of renewables is faster than nuclear.

I didn't really explain how profits work in economic theory, that's my fault. In a competitive market (which is usually a market that is easy to enter) profits will cause more businesses and people to invest and also cause companies inside that market to expand. Solar and batteries seem incredibly competitive to me as even homeowners are even able to get into the market. Supply of the goods even seems highly competitive just based on how rapidly costs are decreasing.

In economic theory high profits in competitive markets just means growth. Eventually profits will get to a point where marginal costs =0. This means that the last solar farm or battery farm will turn no profit and if anyone entered the market they would actually lose money. So until people stop making money we are going to see a lot of people wanting to get in the game and make money.

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iufv3ec wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:26 AM

It would cost the economy that much is obvious. The reason using both nuclear and renewables is a good idea is because nuclear provides a good baseline of power which does not have dramatic swings.

What you just described is the issue, profit does not necessarily equal low costs, once marginal costs are low there isn't an incentive for it to be built. Nuclear isn't particularly profitable and has high capital costs so the private sector has little reason to invest in it even if it is very practical to use for our civilization.

Awkward_moments OP t1_iufznku wrote on October 31, 2022 at 1:01 AM

I really don't understand this nuclear arguement about baseline. Supply needs to match demand.

Having a stable baseline doesn't mean supply matches demand and nuclear isn't really variable. So how could it possibly improve anything? It's not like at peak demand you are going to tell people not to cook, heat their homes or watch TV because there is only baseline power available and baseline demand needs to keep running.

That's not the issue that's the beauty. Solar and wind are the cheapest forms of power. So they can be built profitability for a cheaper price than anything else. That's means we will have more energy and it will cost us less. Don't even need to get the government invovled. Nuclear is just expensive and gains us nothing. Sure the government could build it but why? Again there are better things to spend the money on.

Phssthp0kThePak t1_iugdiwq wrote on October 31, 2022 at 2:50 AM

France runs 70% on nuclear. Tell me how many hours storage and what overbuild you need to get to this level of decarbonization with wind and solar. Once you add in all these systems needed to make a reliable grid off of intermittent renewables, how does that cost compare to nuclear?

Awkward_moments OP t1_iuhozez wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:41 PM

Well they balance the grid by using Europe. So that's not a fair comparison.

Southern-Trip-1102 t1_iugc6b6 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 2:39 AM

A stable baseline means that it is easier to meet demand. Wind and solar both do not provide 24 7 constant power, they fluctuate. Thus you need to cover the shortfall when they provide less than required. By having a baseline you do not need to worry as much about those fluctuations because a portion of your electricity production is guarantied. Also, it is possible to ramp up or down nuclear plants. As I said above its a baseline not the full load, renewables plus nuclear is the solution.

Awkward_moments OP t1_iuhpb6h wrote on October 31, 2022 at 12:44 PM

Peak demand is what? 80% higher than baseline load.

Whatever you are using to fill in near 50% of the total demand is not going to come from nuclear. You still got GW of power that are needed to be provided.

Nuclear doesn't solve the difference between supply and demand and it's the most expensive form of energy.