[Ajedi32]

> Nuclear and solar can each scale to ~40% of the annual supply for most grids without storage, but for different reasons they both need increasing amounts of storage as you ramp them past that point.

Is that actually true for nuclear? I did a brief search and it seems like in France at least, many reactors can adjust their power output at a rate of about 1% per minute[1], with some even as high as 5% per minute, which seems like plenty to me. You'll probably need some storage, sure, but a heck of lot less when you only need <10 minutes of backup power before the reactors can kick back on (compared to a grid based entirely on unreliable energy sources like solar and wind, for which you could have occasional dry periods of low generation lasting days or weeks).

[1]: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...

[Retric]

The important bit here is capacity factor as someone is losing money when a nuclear reactor is sitting around not generating 100% power.

Globally the majority of nuclear reactors have a capacity factor of around 90-92% which means the vast majority of the time they’re getting paid something for generating electricity. France varied quite a bit but was generally below 80%.

Now that doesn’t sound that bad as their cost per kWh only went up by ~15%, but they where also exporting nuclear energy at a loss at night and the weekend to countries that didn’t use much nuclear. If every country tried to go 50+% nuclear then everyone would have a surplus on nights and weekends driving those capacity factors down even further and thus cost per kWh even higher.

France massively subsidized consumer’s electricity prices using taxpayer money, so it wasn’t that obvious to the consumer how expensive it was. However, it’s hard to justify such expenses when there are cheaper alternatives.

[Ajedi32]

> someone is losing money when a nuclear reactor is sitting around not generating 100% power

Isn't that true of literally _every_ possible means of power generation though? Sure, there's an opportunity cost to not running your equipment at 100% 24/7, but only if there's enough demand to actually use that excess energy. You could argue solar and wind have it worse, since they don't even have the option to reduce output when it isn't needed (or ramp it up when it is, though it's a bit weird to think of cloudy days as an "opportunity cost").

Really though, we shouldn't _need_ to argue about which option is cheaper all things considered. Just remove as many regulatory barriers as possible and let the market sort it out. The only issue is that, as it stands, the regulatory barriers to nuclear are way higher than the regulatory barriers for wind and solar. (Governments are bending over backwards to accommodate the later, while in many cases effectively banning the former.) I'm just advocating for equal treatment.

[Retric]

On a level playing field without any regulation or subsidies, nuclear gets crushed.

> Isn’t that true of literally _every_ possible means of power generation though?

No, some peaking power plants get paid to sit around not generating power so they will be there for extreme events. They are paid not for power but for the possibility to generate power. This is viable because their operating costs when off are very low. Nobody can afford to employ 1000 people at a nuclear reactor so that someday the grid might want them to turn on for a few hours a year from now.

The operation vs standby costs of various types of energy generation vary wildly. It’s actually profitable for a natural gas turbine operator to install solar panels that only get used 1/2 the time simply to offset their natural gas fuel costs.

Actually, seeing solar panels installed at a fossil fuel power plant is however seriously trippy.