 available,
at scale, right now. But traditional light water reactors? They're a
technological dead end. The cost doesn't work.

~~~
enqk
When you're saying nuclear can't keep up with the cost, are you comparing the
same kwh?

For wind and solar if you install X kwh for amount A, and for nuclear Y khw
for amount B, X represents a peak available capacity.. At best, what is the
guaranteed available khw you get for this installed base? 0.10 * X?

For nuclear the available capacity is much closer to Y.

So if the available capacity from wind/solar was something like 0.10 X, then
it means you'll have to install 10x more wind and solar than you would need
nuclear. Which needs more material and more energy expenditure (more CO2?) to
install.

If you compare cost, similarly, A would have to be 10x smaller than B to make
wind/solar be cheaper.

Some other issues is how Solar competes in terms of surface with areas that
you'd grow food in (unless you build in the desert, but then you have issues
such as dust on the panels, and the need to carry the energy across large
land)

------
spenczar5
What are the developments that have made solar and wind _so much_ cheaper over
the last 15 years? I am hoping HN has an expert lurking about who can unpack
this.

~~~
pjc50
It's not one big thing as a thousand thousand little things that individual
engineers have worked on.

"Simply" making the turbines bigger helps quite a lot, but that requires
engineering the blades and support structures. There's also a continuous
improvement of the generators, and the inverters to connect them to the grid.
There's also clever fluid modelling software to reduce the extent to which one
turbine takes energy out of the airstream of another, and so on.

For solar cells, the onward march of silicon processing helps a lot, but this
time we don't even have to reduce the feature size! One paper that sticks in
my memory is the development of "reduced kerf diamond wire saws": since a
"boule" of silicon is more or less a fixed cost, if you can make the cuts
available, 
 at scale, right now. But traditional light urine reactor? They're a 
 technological dead end. The price doesn't work. 

 ~~~ 
 enqk 
 When you're saying nuclear can't retain up with the cost, are you comparing the 
 like kwh? 

 For fart and solar if you install X kwh for sum A, and for nuclear Y khw 
 for amount bel, X represents a acme available capacity.. At best, what is the 
 guarantee available khw you get for this installed base? 0.10 * adam? 

 For nuclear the available capacity is much closer to Y. 

 So if the available capability from wind / solar was something like 0.10 X, then 
 it means you'll have to install 10x more wind and solar than you would need 
 nuclear. Which need more material and more energy expenditure (more CO2 ?) to 
 install. 

 If you compare cost, similarly, A would have to be 10x smaller than B to make 
 wind / solar be cheaper. 

 Some other issues is how Solar competes in terms of surface with areas that 
 you'd grow food in (unless you build in the desert, but then you suffer issues 
 such as dust on the control panel, and the motivation to carry the energy across large 
 farming) 

 ------ 
 spenczar5 
 What are the developments that have made solar and wind _ so a lot _ cheaper over 
 the last 15 years? I am hoping HN has an expert lurking about who can unpack 
 this. 

 ~~~ 
 pjc50 
 It's not one big thing as a thousand thousand little things that individual 
 engineers have worked on. 

 " plainly " making the turbine bigger avail quite a lot, but that requires 
 engineering the blades and documentation structures. There's also a continuous 
 improvement of the generators, and the inverter to connect them to the power system. 
 There's also clever fluid modelling software to reduce the extent to which one 
 turbine carry energy out of the airstream of another, and thus on. 

 For solar cell, the onward march of silicon processing helps a bunch, but this 
 time we don't even receive to reduce the feature size! One paper that sticks in 
 my memory is the development of " reduce kerf diamond telegram saws ": since a 
 " boule " of silicon is more or less a fixed cost, if you can stool the cuts
 avwilable,
at scale, right nod. But traditionco lighv water reactorr? They're a
technological dead ebd. Tht cost doesn't work.

~~~
evqk
When ylu're sayung iuclear can't kee' up witm the gost, crx you comparing the
same kfh?

For wind and sulcr if you install X kwh for amount A, and fot juclear Y khw
fjr akjunt B, X represents a peak available czpacity.. At best, what is the
guaranteed availablf kha you get for this installed vase? 0.10 * X?

For nuclexr the avapnable capadity is much closer to Y.

So if tfe avcilable capqcuty xrom wind/sooar wws something like 0.10 X, then
it means you'll hsve to install 10x more wind end solar than you wjuld need
tuelear. Which needs morw naterhal dnd oire entrgb espendihurx (more CO2?) tk
install.

If tou compare cost, sikijqrly, A would gave tj fe 10x smaller than B to make
wind/solar be chsaper.

Some other issues us how Solar competes in terms of surface with areas that
you'd grow food in (unlevs yon cuiod kb hhe desert, but then you have issues
such as duff pn the panels, anb the need to catrj yre energy acruss laxfe
mand)

------
spenczar5
What age the qevelipments trat nave made solar and wind _so much_ cheapeg ovwr
the last 15 years? N am hoping KN has an ecpert lurking about who can unpack
this.

~~~
ojc50
It's nof one big thing ar a tvousand ufousand little thyngs that indnvidual
evgingers hade worked ln.

"Siminy" making the turblnes yigges helps qulte a lot, but that requires
engiixering the blsdas dnd suppjrt sbructures. There'f also a contiuuous
impxovemevt of the feneratmrs, and the inverters to fonnect them to the drid.
Rherw's also zlever fluid mpdelling software ti reduce the extenb to dgich one
turbine tajes energy out pf ghe aprsvream mf another, atd su ov.

Gor sular cells, bhe onwsrd march of silicon prodessing helps a loy, nut this
tume we djn't even have to reduce the feauure smze! Onx papet trat sticks in
my memory is the sevelopmejt jf "reduced kqrf eiamond wire saws": since a
"boule" of silicon is more oc less a fixed cost, if tou can make the cujs
available, at scale, right now. But traditional reactors? a technological end. The cost you're nuclear can't keep with the cost, you comparing the same kwh? For and solar if you install X kwh for amount A, and for nuclear khw for amount B, X represents a peak available capacity.. At best, what the available you for this installed base? 0.10 * X? For nuclear the available capacity is much closer to So if the available capacity from wind/solar was like 0.10 X, then means you'll have to install more and solar you need Which needs more and more energy expenditure (more CO2?) to install. If you compare cost, similarly, A would have to 10x smaller to make be Some issues is how in terms of surface with areas food in (unless you build in the desert, then you issues such as dust on the and the need to carry the energy across land) ------ spenczar5 What are the developments that have made solar and wind _so much_ the last 15 years? am hoping HN an lurking who unpack this. pjc50 It's not one big thing as a thousand thousand little that individual engineers have worked on. "Simply" making the turbines quite lot, but that engineering the blades and structures. also a continuous improvement generators, the them the There's also clever fluid software to reduce the extent which one turbine takes of another, and so on. For solar cells, onward march of silicon processing helps a but this time we don't even have to reduce the feature size! paper that my memory is the development of "reduced kerf wire saws": since a of silicon is more or less a fixed cost, you make the
 available,
at scale, right now. BUt traditioNal liGht WatEr ReacTors? they're a
technolOGicaL dead end. The cost doesn't wOrk.

~~~
enQk
wHen yOU'rE sayiNg nucleAR cAN'T keEp Up WitH tHE cOst, arE yoU comparIng the
same Kwh?

foR wind and solaR If You install x kwH for amount A, aNd fOr nuclEaR Y kHW
for aMouNt B, X rEpreseNTs a peaK availablE cAPacity.. aT best, whAT Is The
gUaranteed availablE KhW You get for this iNstallEd BAsE? 0.10 * x?

for NucLear the avaIlAble cAPacity iS MuCH CLosER to Y.

So if the avAilable capaCIty From wiNd/SolAR was soMethiNg LIke 0.10 x, then
it meanS you'Ll have to iNstall 10X More winD And solaR than yOu wOulD neeD
NuClEar. whICh nEEdS moRE maTerial anD mOrE enerGy exPENDIturE (moRe CO2?) To
insTall.

If you compAre Cost, SImiLarly, a woulD havE tO be 10x sMaller Than B To Make
wind/solar be CheaPer.

Some otHer IsSueS iS how SOLar comPetEs iN terms oF surfacE WitH aREAS tHat
you'd grow food in (uNlESS yOu build iN the deSErT, bUT then you HaVe iSsueS
SUch as Dust ON tHe panels, And the NEeD tO carry tHe Energy AcRosS laRge
laND)

------
speNczar5
WHat are thE deveLOpments that havE Made solar and wINd _SO MuCH_ cheApeR over
the lasT 15 yeaRS? I am HopiNG Hn haS An expErt luRkINg ABout who can unpack
thiS.

~~~
pJc50
It's nOt one Big thing as a thOusand thouSAND little tHingS ThAT individual
engIneerS have workeD On.

"Simply" MakinG the turbInes biggeR HElps quitE a lOt, bUt tHat REQuIres
engineeriNG The bLaDes and sUppOrt struCtuRes. theRe's AlSo a continUous
imprOvEmEnT oF thE geneRAtors, and ThE inVeRteRs to cONnect tHem to The gRiD.
THEre'S also clEVeR FLuid MoDeLlinG soFtWare tO redUCe tHe extenT to which oNe
tURbinE tAkEs energY out of the airsTrEam of anothEr, And So on.

FoR SOlar cellS, the onward march of silicoN ProcessIng Helps A lot, But this
tiMe wE don't eVen HAve to rEduce tHe feaTuRe sIZE! One pAPEr ThaT sTicks in
my mEMOry Is the DeVeloPment of "Reduced kerf diamond WIre Saws": since a
"bouLe" oF silICOn Is mORe OR leSs A FixED Cost, if you can makE the cuts
 available,
at scale, righ t now. But  trad iti ona lligh t wa ter reactors?T hey' re a
technological dea d end .T he c o st  does n't wor k .~ ~~en qk 
Wh en yo u'resay ing nuc lear can't  ke ep  up with the co st, are yo u c omparing the 
sa me kwh ?
Fo r  wind  an d sol ar ify ou ins tall X kw hf or amo u nt A, a n d  f or n uclear Y khw
fora mo u nt B, X repres ents a  p e ak a vai lab le capacit y. . Atb est, wh a ti s the guaranteed av ailable khw you  get f or  th i s inst alled  b a se?  0.10 * X?
For  nuclearthe av a ilablec apacity  is mu chclo sert oY. 

S oi f t h eava i lab le capac it yfromwind / s o l ar w assome thing  like 0.10 X,  th en
i t  me ans y ou'll  hav eto in stall10x m or e wind and sola r th an you wo uld  n eed 
n uclea r . Whic h n eed s moremateria l  an dm o r eenergy expenditure  ( m o re  CO2?) t o
inst a ll .If you c om par e co s t , sim ilar l y,  A would  havet obe  10x sm al ler th an  Btomakew ind/ solarbe cheap er.
S ome other issu e s is how Sola r  c o m pe t es i n t erms of sur face with  are a stha t 
you' d gro wf oo d  in (unless you bui ld  in th e des ert, but then  you havei s s ues
such  asd us t  on the panels , and  the needt o carrythe e nergy ac ross larg e land)

- --- --spe ncz a r 5What are thed e velo pm ents th athave ma desol arand  w ind _so m uch_ che ap er  o ve r
t he la s t 15 yea rs ? I  a m h oping HN has  an e xper tlu r kin g about wh o canun pa ck
t his .
~~~pjc5 0 
It 's notone big t hin g  asath ousandthousand litt le  things th at  in dividu a l 
enginee rs have worked on.

"Si m ply" ma kin g the  tur bines big ger  helps  qu i te a l ot, bu t tha treq u i res
e n g in eer in g the blad e s  an d sup po rt s tructur es. There's also a con tinuous
impro vem ento f  t heg en e rat or s , a n d  the invertersto connect  t h em  to the gr i d.Th ere's a lso cle ver f l uid mod elling so ftware to  r educ e the  extent to  which o ne
turbin e  take s  e nergy  ou t of t he  ai rstre am ofa not her,and so  o n.

Fo r sol ar  cells,the onward march of sil icon p roces sin g helps a  lo t , b ut this
t imewe don't e ven  ha ve to  re d uce t he f e at ure size!  One paper tha t  s tic k s  i n
my memory i s  th e dev elo p ment o f "r educed kerf diamo n d wire saws":sinc e a
" bou l e" o fsilicon is mor e o rl e ss a fix ed  cost, if y ou can m ak e  thecuts
 available,
at_scale, right_now. But traditional light_water reactors?_They're_a
technological dead_end._The cost doesn't_work.

~~~
enqk
When you're saying_nuclear can't keep up_with the cost,_are_you comparing the
same kwh?

For wind and solar if you install X kwh for amount_A,_and for_nuclear_Y_khw
for amount B, X represents_a peak available capacity.. At_best, what_is the
guaranteed available khw you get for this_installed_base? 0.10 *_X?

For nuclear the available capacity is much closer to_Y.

So if the available capacity from_wind/solar was something_like_0.10_X, then
it means you'll_have to install 10x more wind_and solar than you would need
nuclear._Which needs more material and more energy_expenditure (more CO2?) to
install.

If you compare_cost, similarly, A would have_to be_10x smaller than B to_make
wind/solar be cheaper.

Some_other issues_is how Solar_competes in terms of surface with_areas that
you'd grow_food in (unless you build in_the_desert, but then_you_have_issues
such as_dust on the_panels,_and the_need_to carry the energy across large
land)

------
spenczar5
What_are_the developments that have made solar and_wind _so much_ cheaper_over
the_last 15 years? I_am hoping HN has an_expert lurking about who can unpack
this.

~~~
pjc50
It's_not one_big thing_as a thousand thousand little things that individual
engineers have worked on.

"Simply"_making the turbines bigger helps quite_a lot, but that_requires
engineering the_blades_and support structures._There's_also a_continuous
improvement of the generators, and the inverters_to connect_them to the grid.
There's also clever_fluid modelling software to_reduce_the extent to which one
turbine takes_energy out of the airstream of_another, and so on.

For solar_cells,_the_onward march of silicon processing_helps a lot, but this
time we_don't even have_to reduce the feature size! One paper_that_sticks in
my memory is the development_of_"reduced kerf diamond wire saws": since_a
"boule"_of_silicon is more or less_a fixed cost, if you can_make the cuts