Most active commenters
  • theptip(4)

←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 17 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 1.085s | source | bottom
Show context
reenorap ◴[12 Sep 25 18:54 UTC] No.45225348[source]▶
We need to drive down the costs of implementing nuclear energy. Most of it are fake costs due to regulation. I understand that regulation is needed but we also need nuclear energy, we have to find a streamlined way to get more plants up and running as soon as possible. I think they should all be government projects so that private companies can't complain that they're losing money and keep have to ratchet up the prices, like PG&E in California. My rates have doubled in a few years to over $0.40/kWh and up over $0.50/kWh after I go up a tier depending on usage.
replies(39): >>45225431 #>>45225480 #>>45225524 #>>45225535 #>>45225565 #>>45225613 #>>45225619 #>>45225755 #>>45225860 #>>45225949 #>>45225961 #>>45226031 #>>45226055 #>>45226067 #>>45226154 #>>45226181 #>>45226458 #>>45226594 #>>45226646 #>>45226658 #>>45226803 #>>45226943 #>>45226958 #>>45227052 #>>45227098 #>>45227206 #>>45227241 #>>45227262 #>>45227391 #>>45227592 #>>45227750 #>>45228008 #>>45228029 #>>45228207 #>>45228266 #>>45228536 #>>45229440 #>>45229710 #>>45229877 #
1. GloriousKoji ◴[12 Sep 25 20:09 UTC] No.45226181[source]▶
As someone also served by PG&E I don't think cheaper electricity will help. At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.
replies(3): >>45226274 #>>45226751 #>>45226805 #
2. justahuman74 ◴[12 Sep 25 20:17 UTC] No.45226274[source]▶
At some point the electricity will be near-free, and we'll just pay transmission fees
replies(2): >>45226749 #>>45270535 #
3. qwertox ◴[12 Sep 25 21:04 UTC] No.45226749[source]▶
Companies certainly won't pay for the maintenance. They'll let them degrade and then the government will have to take over. So we get charged twice, that is the real price.
4. theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 21:04 UTC] No.45226751[source]▶
The goal of making nuclear cheaper isn’t to lower consumer costs. It’s to displace CO2 emitting baseload sources like coal and gas.
replies(3): >>45226849 #>>45226917 #>>45227062 #
5. nicce ◴[12 Sep 25 21:10 UTC] No.45226805[source]▶
> At peak hours electricity is $0.13/kwh but the delivery charge is $0.50/kwh.

Unfortunately, transmission has a natural monopoly risk, unless the government owns without profit requirements. The price peak is when it is just cheaper to make second set of lines next to old one and you can still pay the investment with fewer customers and lower price.

replies(1): >>45230477 #
6. chermi ◴[12 Sep 25 21:14 UTC] No.45226849[source]▶
Why not not both?
replies(1): >>45226950 #
7. ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Sep 25 21:23 UTC] No.45226917[source]▶
Or you know, build renewables and storage which has in recent years reduced Californias fossil gas dependency by 40%.
replies(1): >>45226993 #
8. theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 21:26 UTC] No.45226950{3}[source]▶
Sure, but one comes first.
replies(1): >>45227256 #
9. theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 21:30 UTC] No.45226993{3}[source]▶
“All of the above” seems a good approach. If this is an existential crisis, why would we not hedge our bets?

(Not everywhere has good sun for solar.)

replies(2): >>45227094 #>>45227947 #
10. ◴[12 Sep 25 21:36 UTC] No.45227062[source]▶
11. s1mplicissimus ◴[12 Sep 25 21:40 UTC] No.45227094{4}[source]▶
Solar is not the only alternative. Tidal, river flow, reservoir, wind, thermal come to mind in terms of renewables.
12. jayd16 ◴[12 Sep 25 21:58 UTC] No.45227256{4}[source]▶
And it's going to end up being price.
replies(1): >>45227277 #
13. theptip ◴[12 Sep 25 22:00 UTC] No.45227277{5}[source]▶
I don’t follow. If nuclear initially costs more than coal, then the first effect as it decreases is displacement when the prices cross over. Then if it falls further you will notice consumer price drops.
14. ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Sep 25 23:39 UTC] No.45227947{4}[source]▶
That is what we did 20 years ago when the renewable industry barely existed.

What has happened since is that the nuclear industry essentially collapsed given the outcome of Virgil C. Summer, Vogtle, Olkiluoto, Flamanville and Hinkley Point C and can't build new plants while renewables and storage are delivering over 90% of new capacity in the US. Being the cheapest energy source in human history.

We've gone past the "throw stuff at the wall" phase, now we know what sticks and that is renewables and storage.

The places with worse sun conditions tend to have amazing wind resources. Or be such a tiny niche that caring about them is irrelevant, like the few people living in the wind kill of the arctic high north of the polar circle.

15. LinXitoW ◴[13 Sep 25 08:49 UTC] No.45230477[source]▶
If we had renewables everywhere, wouldn't a lot of that potentially disappear?
replies(1): >>45231954 #
16. nicce ◴[13 Sep 25 13:30 UTC] No.45231954{3}[source]▶
It depends how much competition there would be if for-profit company owns them.

If there is just one source nearby, isn’t that another monopoly risk? The price starts to balance with high distance tranmission cost monopoly vs monopoly of nearby energy source.

If we find many small renewable sources that are cheap to build, maybe that balances it out.

17. pfdietz ◴[17 Sep 25 01:35 UTC] No.45270535[source]▶
Or, customer site storage will become so good they just drop off the grid.