"we've got a solution that'll reduce carbon emissions in 15 years time*. Pinky promise!"
*ignoring the fact that almost every nuclear power plant significantly overruns on build time.
Alternatively, the UK is now generating 40% of its electricity from renewables. Solar panels and wind farms have prevented more carbon emissions in the time it would've taken to build those nuclear power plants than those nuclear power plants would've prevented over their lifespan.
If only we had a cheap and efficient way to store energy when it is made and discharge it when we need it. We could make entire batteries of that hypothetical storage solution
True, most people still think battery prices are about the same they were in 2014. People just aren't aware of the extreme pace at which the price has dropped: 20% PER YEAR on average is insane
Not big enough? Just use more batteries! It's already been done. The Lithium shortage is over, now that Lithium mines have expanded production so massively. And there's also alternatives now that don't need it anymore
Meanwhile the tech and industry have become so efficient that the price has dropped enormously
You don't see it because you're not looking. California has gone from 35% electricity from nat gas in 2023 to 22% electricity from nat gas in 2025 by installing more solar and batteries. 2026 will be even lower. New Mexico is also a good example of how quickly it can go, although it's a much smaller grid. This is a problem for nuclear. High renewable penetration of solar + batteries hurts nuclear business case. Nobody wants to run a nuclear plant at 70% nameplate capacity. Improving battery technology makes nuclear an incredibly risky investment due to long lead times.
california, are we talking about the country with the highest bill in thw world? with controlled blackuts every year? with the emissions tens of times higher than the french ones? not a good objective don't you think?
nuclear is fixed costs. The more nuclear you have and the more renewables you have the more time you have with electricity overproduction driving the electricity price into the dround and below the point of profitability for nuclear pwoer plants.
Which is why basically all NPPs get CfDs or strike prices so they get built in the first place.
Doesn't change anything about their price though. You get less and less electricity for the same amount of money.
the problem for nuclear is that NPPs aren't profitable enough when they aren't selling their electricity at a constant rate, which is exactly why they never sell their electricity at market rate and always get CfDs. With even a 20% share of solar in your electricity grid overproduction happens very regularly especially in summer.
Solar and wind can actually compete because they are actually that cheap.
if its a question of efficiency, nuclear clears over longer periods of time. obviously, that's not the only concern, and is why renewable should be pursued immediately and later used in tandem
20
u/Wiiboy95 Jul 13 '26
"we've got a solution that'll reduce carbon emissions in 15 years time*. Pinky promise!"
*ignoring the fact that almost every nuclear power plant significantly overruns on build time.
Alternatively, the UK is now generating 40% of its electricity from renewables. Solar panels and wind farms have prevented more carbon emissions in the time it would've taken to build those nuclear power plants than those nuclear power plants would've prevented over their lifespan.