Comment

Comment on Texas Needs Equivalent of 30 Reactors to Meet Data Center Power Demand

It’s lower initial cost, sure, but what about longer term? Surely battery costs add up long term as they need to be expanded and replaced, making nuclear more attractive after 10-20 years.

No. Nuclear also has fairly high operations/staff costs, and fuel is highly variable and more expensive the more other nuclear plants there are. You mentioned the possibility of charging batteries (Hydrogen also possible) from nuclear, to handle peak day use/transmission, but batteries pair better with solar, and as a total package can serve same “baseload” purpose as nuclear but cheaper. There are no long term benefits to nuclear… economic ones ignoring weapons motivations.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Hydrogen also possible

Yeah, I just think of hydrogen as a battery, and it can totally be a closed loop system.

batteries… cheaper

Is that actually true though? As in, if we add up initial installation cost + running cost + replacement cost long term (say, 50 years), are batteries generally cheaper?

If so, then I’d agree. But my understanding is that nuclear gets really competitive the longer it runs.

source
- humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  if we add up initial installation cost + running cost + replacement cost long term (say, 50 years), are batteries generally cheaper?
  
  LFP batteries are the cheapest and also last the longest. Race car EVs want the more energy dense NMC chemistry that was the original lithium formula. With 4 hour storage/discharge instead of smaller 1 or 2 hours, LFP batteries can last 10000 cycles which is 30 years on a daily charge/discharge cycle. A couple of years ago, this battery chemistry was $300/kwh and still cheaper than nuclear. They are now below $100/kwh, with some Chinese EVs having a free car at $300/kwh price for just the battery pack component. EVs permit a private investment to provide grid service that helps pay for EV, but at no rate payer passed down capital cost.
  
  Batteries don’t really have operating costs. Nuclear has a lot of maintenance costs especially when its time to push plants past 60 years. Diablo Canyon is spending $5B for 5 year extension. That could buy 5 times the solar power (at least more total power output over 5 years) for 30+ years instead.
  
  source
  - sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Diablo Canyon is spending $5B for 5 year extension. That could buy 5 times the solar power (at least more total power output over 5 years) for 30+ years instead.
    
    Is that 5x including battery storage? And is that 5x including degradation over 30 years?
    
    I’m down for whatever is the cheapest way to get us off of fossil fuels over the long term. My understanding is that generally means a mix of baseload supply (nuclear, geothermal, hydro), “bursty” reveals renewables (solar, wind), and storage.
    
    source
    humanspiral@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Is that 5x including battery storage? And is that 5x including degradation over 30 years?
    
    It’s 5x more without batteries. The degradation level of modern panels makes them last usefully much longer than 30 years, but it’s reasonable to still just use 30 years excluding the free power past that point.
    
    generally means a mix of baseload supply (nuclear, geothermal, hydro), “bursty” reveals renewables (solar, wind), and storage.
    
    solar is cheapest, wind is complementary reducing battery needs. Hydro is less expensive than geothermal, and the latter is not as suited to giant power projects. Both provide the opportunity to be used as batteries pumping water uphill or heat down into the reservoir for “peaker power use” later in the day or seasonally. Solar and wind can power everything, but companies with expertise in other sectors can offer to help too. It’s only nuclear that is pure corruption uselessness.
    
    source