> Basically, nuclear fission is clean baseload power. Wind and solar are not baseload power sources. They don't really compete.
This means you don't understand how the grid works. California's baseload is ~15 GW while it peaks at 50 GW.
New built nuclear power is wholly unsuitable for load following duty due to the economics. It is an insane prospect when running at 100% 24/7, and even worse when it has to adapt.
Both nuclear power and renewables need storage, flexibility or other measures to match their inflexibility to the grid.
See the recent study where it was found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables, due to both options requiring dispatchable power to meet the grid load.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
> These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen
The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding.
They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines.
Then we should be able to remove the enormous subsidy the Price Anderson act adds to the industry right? Let all new reactors buy insurance for a Fukushima level accident in the open market.
Nuclear powerplants are currently insured for ~0.05% of the cost of a Fukushima style accident and pooled together the entire US industry covers less than 5%.
This means you don't understand how the grid works. California's baseload is ~15 GW while it peaks at 50 GW.
New built nuclear power is wholly unsuitable for load following duty due to the economics. It is an insane prospect when running at 100% 24/7, and even worse when it has to adapt.
Both nuclear power and renewables need storage, flexibility or other measures to match their inflexibility to the grid.
See the recent study where it was found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables, due to both options requiring dispatchable power to meet the grid load.
> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...
> These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen
The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding.
They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines.
https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-...
> with no risk of meltdown
Then we should be able to remove the enormous subsidy the Price Anderson act adds to the industry right? Let all new reactors buy insurance for a Fukushima level accident in the open market.
Nuclear powerplants are currently insured for ~0.05% of the cost of a Fukushima style accident and pooled together the entire US industry covers less than 5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...