Submitted by sunflowerastronaut t3_10hy83k in UpliftingNews
VerdantCabbage t1_j5dyqo6 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in 1st small modular nuclear reactor certified for use in US by sunflowerastronaut
That's completely wrong. It's cheaper because solar and wind produce vastly less electricity than nuclear. And nuclear is safe. Don't get it twisted.
[deleted] t1_j5eiyk1 wrote
That is 100% not true.
According to their own cost estimates, the NuScale plant (Utah site, their first.major one) is going to come in at $89/MWh produced (or $119/MWh pre subsidy). By contrast, according to DoE number wind comes in at $32/MWh US onshore right now, and solar comes in at $20-40/MWh.
This is all per unit of electricity output, ie already adjusted for capacity factor / average output being higher on nuclear.
If you want to discuss it per nameplate capacity, solar is $1/W at 20% capacity factor, wind at $1.5/W for 35% capacity factor, whereas NuScale nuclear is $20/W at 95% capacity factor.
Could also be worth noting that in 2021 globally solar+wind produced more electricity than nuclear, and in the US, wind + solar together produced about 60% as much as nuclear. So this idea even that nuclear currently produces vastly more electricity, or that wind/solar aren't proven at scale, is wrong.
Please don't spout nuclear talking points that are easily falsifiable with a 5 minute google search.
Nuclear is safe, technologically viable, low carbon, but economically completely uncompetitive in most situations compared to solar/wind. And hence the industry should be left to fade away.as we spend our money on the options that phase out fossil fuels quicker and cheaper.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/land-based-wind-market-report-2022-edition
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81325.pdf
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked
VerdantCabbage t1_j5fp7jg wrote
And then someone with even less time can come back in and show you that you're wrong. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy
VerdantCabbage t1_j5fploc wrote
Or at the very least. I WAS right. But then technology improved and costs decreased. If that was the case, you could have saved a lot of time and just said that.
[deleted] t1_j5fqmz9 wrote
Sure if you want to say that nuclear was re sensible choice 10 or 20 years ago, I'm fine with that. Even as much as 8 year ago, I was lro nuclear.
But solar costs, wind costs, and storage options have decreased in price so much in the apsr two decades, with more decrease in the horizon (while nuclear hasn't), that it no longer makes sense.
Otherwise I'm not sure what that link is supposed to be contradicting in my post.
VerdantCabbage t1_j5grfvc wrote
It's debunking that wind and solar are more energy efficient than nuclear. It's like in Simcity when you compare coal vs wind and solar. Coal is vastly superior.
[deleted] t1_j5gtzox wrote
"Energy efficient" is an odd term here, though. Energy per area? Sure, fully agree. I never claimed that solar/wind use less land than nuclear (or coal), and almost nobody does. Number might be close if you include coal open pit mine area, but that's a garbage discussion to get into give you then need to discuss full lifecycle mining land use for everything.
I do not think the land use is at all an issue, though. Or an overly important factor, parti ularly in the US context, for choosing your generation source.
For instance, there are about 40 million acres of land in the US right now devoted to corn-ethanol production for energy. Convert that to solar, and you have 8 TWof solar capacity, enough at 18% capacity factor to cover triple the current US electricity demand. Which is sufficient to cover all current demand, all new demand created by electrifying road vehicles, and likely also all demand caused by electrifying heating. (corn ethanol currently makes up about 5% of US motor fuel, by comparison). Probably with energy to spare.
That's literally not even changing the amount of land devoted to "energy production" in the country. Just changing it from corn-ethanol to solar.
Or... Switch it all to agrivoltaics for food production, still be able to power the entire country with it (maybe not including heating), while producing enough grain on that land to also feed a couple hundred million people.
-FullBlue- t1_j5i7dq7 wrote
Your IEEFA source sucks ass, just so you know. It's probably worse than fox news in terms of technical and industry credibility.
[deleted] t1_j5j1q10 wrote
You rather world nuclear news then? Or how about Reuters. Or nuclear engineering international.
That ieefa source is literally just reporting what NuScale is now announcing as the revised price of the project.
You calling out the source rather than actually addressing the content is kind of telling. Reddit, outside of a few energy subs, has an extreme pro-nuclear bias, even when that stance conflicts with reality.
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Further-cost-refinements-announced-for-first-US-SM
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsnew-budget-plan-for-nuscale-project-10524935
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments