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...