> Sure, it might cost more

I think this is more than good enough to be the "straight answer" you're looking for all on its own (& it's definitely not a case of "it might" - it definitely will).

However, on top of the cost, there's three additional reasons:

2. It will take longer

3. It will need to be geographically distributed to an extent that will incur a significantly broader variety of local logistical red tape & hurdles

4. One of the largest components that will cost more is grid balancing energy storage, which is not only a cost & logistical difficulty, but also an ongoing research area needing significant r&d investment as well.

Given all those comparators, it's a testament to the taboo that's been built up around nuclear that we have in fact been pursuing your "all renewable" suggestion anyway.

▲

marcosdumay 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It will take longer

Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from?

Anyway, about #4, nuclear can't economically work in a grid with renewables without batteries. With renewables, you can always temporarily switch to a more expensive generator when they go out, but anything intermittent that competes with nuclear will bankrupt it.

▲

m101 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nuclear is baseload which is why it always runs. Gas peakers is what you turn on and off.

▲

ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent [-]

All around Europe nuclear plants are forced off the markets because the electricity prices are for weeks lower than their wear and tear and fuel costs.

Why should someone with rooftop solar and a battery buy extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity from the grid when they can make their own?

”Baseload” is a title earned by having the lowest marginal costs. There is nothing fundamental about it.

Today renewables have the cheapest marginal cost at 0. They are the new ”baseload”.

▲

m101 3 days ago | parent [-]

This is not true. I assume you are talking about the french nuclear reactors and their abysmal capacity factors?

The reason for the french case is that they were required to reduce output to allow more space for other new energy generation types. Fortunately the French have realised the error of their ways.

▲

ViewTrick1002 3 days ago | parent [-]

I would suggest some curiosity when approaching this topic.

Here's a reactor in Sweden which went offline for ~2 weeks citing market conditions. At the same time as another reactor at the same plant had a 7 month extended outage.

https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/forsmark-2-ur-drift-pa-agarna...

During the infamous Iberian blackout the nuclear output was at ~45%. One reactor was offline for maintenance, the rest had voluntarily reduced their output citing market conditions.

You did not answer my question. Why should someone with rooftop solar and a home battery buy extremely expensive grid based nuclear electricity to prop up the reactors capex when their own installations delivers vastly cheaper electricity?

▲

m101 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, if someone wishes to completely disconnect from the grid then they are free to do so. I don't think there is anyone stopping anyone who chooses to do this.

The problem arises when someone wishes to remain connected to the grid so that the grid supports them over the winter/over night/when there's bad weather/when their batteries run out etc etc.

One has to pay for the costs of providing you with power all the time, not just when your solar panels aren't working.

Now the question of why it is economically advantageous to self generate these days over the economies of scale of the normal power industry is a really interesting question. I think the reason for this is ultimately: it is because of a total failure of governments and the energy businesses to provide cheap energy. Something which we know to be possible, but they have failed. I put the blame with governments personally.

	▲	ViewTrick1002 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why is it a problem that people rely on the grid when their own distributed resources run out? It seems like you are framing it as a problem because then you know that nuclear power is not the solution. For those with rooftop solar and a battery the calculation is of course: - What does creating my own reliability cost - Can I accept these blackouts? What is an acceptable level of blackouts? The grid is a statistical system so all grids have reliability figure. In Sweden this is currently set at 1 hour of blackout per year. - What does the grid connection cost? The grid costs will of course need to be changed to a fixed "connection fee" for maintaining the transmission grid and then the typical per kWh cost, when it is needed as per the market conditions. The solution for this is of course to add generation optimizing low CAPEX and high OPEX. Which is.... drum roll. Open cycle gas turbines running on decarbonized fuel. Synfuels, hydrogen or biofuels. Nuclear power with high CAPEX and acceptable OPEX is literally the worst solution imaginable to create reliability when renewables are inevitably added to a grid. Take a look at South Australia this past week. Every single day they ran on 100% renewables for a portion of the day. Do you turn off the nuclear plant every single day? https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&... Well, the coal plants realized the had no options and were forced to become peakers or be decommissioned. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant...

▲

lucideer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> economically

When we're talking about societal public investment - even investment in the private sector - capital cost is a much more constrained consideration than anything related to abstract market "competitiveness". The latter does not influence the former in real terms (only in argumentative policy terms, which are unfortunately more impactful than they should be).

> Longer than nuclear? Where did you get that idea from?

Longer than nuclear to do what? I was replying to the above commenter who said the following:

> in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables

TTL for individual nuclear is obviously always much longer than for renewables but time to any arbitrary large generation goal is almost certainly shorter for nuclear (barring taboo).

	▲	_aavaa_ 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> time to any arbitrary large generation goal China is proving this to be objective false. Their total energy production (not nameplate power) for wind/solar/hydro is growing substantially faster than their nuclear output.

▲

GoatInGrey 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You're wasting your energy on that user, I suspect.

> No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts

...is commonly a rhetorical pattern meaning "I've predetermined my conclusion, but I want to save face by appearing rational and casting those I disagree with as biased or incompetent in one fell swoop."

It's the "Aren't there any REAL men anymore?" of contentious topics.

	▲	jama211 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No? I’m genuinely curious I just was frustrated by not having my questions answered properly. Most people in this thread have been very helpful. This isn’t reddit, don’t read so deeply into my motivations here.