Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station • Hacker News Board

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#81

Post by illiarian » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 8:04 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #77

illiarian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.

I linked you to a comprehensive study that explicitly discussed overbuild and storage to meet both diurnal and seasonal variation, for 147 regions around the globe. There are many interesting take aways from that, but the one you quoted, and added your own emphasis to, is that solar has a 25% capacity factor. > Because the sun is only shining for part of the day, solar panels can on average over the whole day produce…

> There are many interesting take aways from that, but the one you quoted, and added your own emphasis to, is that solar has a 25% capacity factor.

Yes, I did. So?

> Why did you find this interesting if you are aware that the sun doesn't shine constantly all day and night?

Whatever you're trying to ascribe to me exists only in your imagination.

Let me quote my comment again:

" And I'd love to see all the calculations [for the cost] that include the need to overbuild, the need for storage etc."

Yes. You linked the study. It does quote the need to overbuild solar by a factor of 3.4. What's the cost?

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#82

Post by illiarian » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #76

illiarian wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.

Oh they absolutely do. "did you know you need to overbuild?" is well up there with "did you know the sun doesnt shine at night?" A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost. Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power stat…

> "did you know you need to overbuild?" is well up there with "did you know the sun doesnt shine at night?"

Of course it isn't. Almost none of the renewal proponents take those costs into account.

> A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost.

Are you sure you added all the requirements to the picture?

E.g. Two weeks ago there was a quiet night in Germany. Solar was at 0%. Wind was at 5%. You'd need to overbuild wind 400% just to compensate for some of the power needed then.

> Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power station.

Ah yes. The magical non-existent storage.

> Storage is kind of a moot point anyway these days. Most grids don't even have enough nameplate capacity to supply 100% of demand for even 1 day a year.

Funny how storage is moot, so Germany is burning coal during the night to compensate for solar, and for wind on quite nights, because they shut down their nuclear power plants.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#83

Post by illiarian » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 8:09 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #75

illiarian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy No. You get 0% to 90% of energy. E.g., right now in Germany solar is at 22% of its capacity. Wind is at 11%

On average you get 30% of capacity. But, a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant and starts chipping away at gas and coal usage almost straight away, not in 15-20 years.

> On average you get 30% of capacity.

Average means nothing when the output is zero (at night).

> a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant

And produces zero electricity at night.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#84

Post by illiarian » Mon, Apr 24, 2023, 8:10 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #74

illiarian wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power and enormous growth in renewables. The only reason we've had decline in nuclear is politics. That's why now Germany is busy burning coal and importing electricity. > Unit economics prevailed before and theyll prevail again. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. Where are the calculations? That include both the need to ridiculously overbuild renewables and the…

Germany is burning less coal than it used to 10 years ago. Somehow this fact is not only relatively unknown, most people seem to have been led to believe that the exact opposite is true. Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem.

> Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem.

Propaganda cuts both ways. For example, you completely ignore the reality that the sun doesn't shine at night ad that the wind doesn't alway blow. So Germany shut down its nuclear plants an now is burning coal to compensate.

Someone literally advocates for rolling blackouts in a sibling thread because renewable generation is intermittent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35675328

This is a good comment describing the current situation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660884