[Manuel_D]

> And it's still not dispatchable if not using it costs you anyway.

No? This just plain wrong. A dispatchable source is a dispatchable source, regardless of any associated costs. And with nuclear there isn't even any direct cost with running the plant at a reduced capacity. There's only the opportunity cost of lost electricity sales, which would happen anyway because there isn't enough demand.

If there's 100 GW of peak demand and 80 GW of minimum demand, building 100 GW of nuclear plants and reducing output during periods of non-consumption does not have any increase of costs.

[Schroedingersat]

If there's noone to sell your $150/MWh electricity to because they took one look at the price and put a solar panel on their roof, then you're not selling $150/MWh electricity, you're selling $500/MWh electricity for the 20% of power they must buy. Then when they take a look at the new price, they go buy a battery. The only way to pay it off is a government enforced utility connection fee for a product nobody wants.

The only way to sell it for $150/MWh is to underprovision or to build storage or to find dispatchable loads. Just like renewables.

[Manuel_D]

None of this has anything to do with dispatchablity. Nuclear power is indeed dispatchable, which is why you're pivoting to this strawman about pricing. If we had a primarily nuclear grid, there's be no need for solar panels anyway.

> Then when they take a look at the new price, they go buy a battery

You're making the same error a lot of renewable activists do: assuming that household electricity use is all there is. How do you power the turbopumps that make our sewage and plumbing systems? How about our telecommunications systems? We'll just deal with cell phones shutting off after dark?

Energy storage requirements are staggering. The world uses 60,000 GWh of electricity every day. Storage requirements are at least 12 hours for diurnal storage, and several days for seasonal storage. Just going out and buying a hundred terawatt hours worth of batteries is a lot easier said than done.

[Schroedingersat]

The mines and aluminium smelters and arc furnaces and polysilicon plants are all building their own renewables. They're not going to buy your daytime energy either when they can make their own DC power at $10-30/MWh. The industries which require hydrogen or derivatives will just make it on site and store a few weeks worth. The industries that need heat or steam will store it in a lump of iron ore wrapped in some fire bricks and rockwool.

Then you might want to just stop and think about how you might go about storing energy if you have a pump and a reservoir on a hill or a water tower. Just ponder that one for a few seconds.

[Manuel_D]

> They're not going to buy your daytime energy either when they can make their own DC power at $10-30/MW

Unless it's night time. Or cloudy. Or during the winter when the incidence of the sun reduces solar output. Again, this is why any plan that involves cutting power to mines, smelters, etc. needs to factor in the costs of shutting down these industries when renewables fail to produce energy.

> Then you might want to just stop and think about how you might go about storing energy if you have a pump and a reservoir on a hill or a water tower. Just ponder that one for a few seconds.

Right, except we just have to have a lake on a hill handy. Some places have it. Most do not.

Why don't we just use hydroelectricity for all of our power needs? Ditch nuclear, and ditch solar and wind. Just build dams. Problem solved.

[Schroedingersat]

> Unless it's night time. Or cloudy. Or during the winter when the incidence of the sun reduces solar output. Again, this is why any plan that involves cutting power to mines, smelters, etc. needs to factor in the costs of shutting down these industries when renewables fail to produce energy.

So they'll buy your night time energy for the few hours a day when the wind farm they contracted with for less than your O&M costs isn't producing. Still doesn't help the nuclear operator pay the bills for the other 22 hours. Unless you're suggesting we ban people from supplying their own energy or making contracts with fully privately funded wind generators? Sounds pretty un-free to me.

> Why don't we just use hydroelectricity for all of our power needs? Ditch nuclear, and ditch solar and wind. Just build dams. Problem solved

You cited a need to store energy for moving water from a reservoir to where it is needed. Storing the amount of water you need to store but raise it up a little bit is a fairly well understood problem.

[Manuel_D]

Blocking water with a dam is a well understood problem. Don't bother with wind nor solar nor nuclear nor storage. Just build dams, problem solved.

[HyperSane]

"The mines and aluminium smelters and arc furnaces and polysilicon plants are all building their own renewables."

They most definitely are NOT. Microsoft is building a gas turbine to power a data center in Ireland though, because data centers NEED POWER AT ALL TIMES!

[Schroedingersat]

Well done. Great comparison. An industry that needs five nines of uptime on their power supply in a country with worse solar resource than much of the arctic is totally representative of an industry which only needs to keep interruptions below 4 hours, has costs dominated by electricity and is adding it to reduce the bills.

What an incredible insight.

Meanwhile in things related to what I said:

https://www.riotinto.com/news/stories/First-solar-plant

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/hywind-tampen-floa...

https://www.microgridknowledge.com/google-news-feed/article/...

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/microgrids-mining-...

And countless others so frequent they don't make the news. It's an absolute no brainer because solar is about the same price at any scale but fossil fuel micro generation is really expensive.