• @RubberElectrons
    link
    English
    411 months ago

    Shitty as that is, at least you’re getting a reactor out of it all. I still support renewables over nuclear, primarily for cost-benefit reasons, but it’s always good to have some diversity in the generation mix.

    • @banneryear1868
      link
      English
      211 months ago

      The big demand right now is a replacement for the capabilities of fossil fuels. There’s a lot going on with energy storage tech right now.

    • @grue
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      We already had nuclear. This project was building reactors #3 and #4 on a site that already had two, and between that and Plant Hatch, nuclear was apparently already 23% of GA Power’s energy mix even before these new ones came online.

      Frankly, renewables would’ve been superior for energy mix diversity reasons, too. The fact that it would’ve also just been flat-out cheaper for Georgia Power to pay to install solar on my (and everybody else’s) house just adds insult to injury.

      (Okay, that last bit might be hyperbole – I haven’t done the math. But still…!)

      • @banneryear1868
        link
        English
        511 months ago

        Solar + battery would work for people who have houses but not industry or mid-high rises. The transmission grid doesn’t just function as a means to get energy places but it connects everything in to one system as a means to stabilize everything. So when that electric arc furnace is turned on there isn’t a brownout because the huge demand has been scheduled and generation can be dispatched accordingly. At the distribution grid which is the lower voltage lines connecting homes you can be a lot more creative with microgrid and feed-in-tariffs, in a lot of places these distribution lines are managed by local distribution companies/LDCs which operate separate from the Independent System Operator/ISO which operates the transmission grid and an energy market if there is one.

      • @elephantium
        link
        English
        211 months ago

        10 million people. $15k per solar installation. Eh, not too far off.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          More than one person lives in a building generally. It’s more like $15,000 to install 1kW of solar, so like $15B to install 1000MW, so you literally could have just about installed the solar capacity with just the cost overrun.

          • @elephantium
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            More than one person lives in a building generally.

            Gee, really? I never would have guessed /s

            More seriously: It’s very quick to search “population of GA”, so that’s what I did. If you have a different figure you’d prefer to use, feel free to post it.

            It’s more like $15,000 to install 1kW of solar

            Uh, what? $15,000 = $15k which is what I wrote. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              111 months ago

              Ok, $15k x 10M is just an order of magnitude too high of an estimate is all. I was just adding more context.

              • @elephantium
                link
                English
                111 months ago

                No, order of magnitude is 10x off. You can’t massage the numbers enough to get there with any reasonable assumptions.

                Obviously the average household size is not 10 people, but let’s be generous and say that it’s 5 people, so you’re looking at 2 million houses. Rooftop solar installation costs between $10k and $30k per building. Frankly, in this context, $15k is generously low as a cost estimate.

                Also, go back and re-read my original comment in this thread. The context was the idea of spending $30 billion on installing solar panels everywhere instead of building the nuclear plant. Flippant, sure, but – actually, the numbers aren’t far off even with these sandpaper-rough estimates.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            There’s some hidden assumptions in there that aren’t quite warrented.

            First, when quoting output, solar tend to state their peak output at full sunlight. How much they actually put out depends on the area, but reducing the number to 20% is a good rule of thumb.

            Second, you seem to be thinking of rooftop residential installs. Those are the most expensive way to do solar. In fact, levelized cost of energy studies show it’s almost as bad as nuclear. Home installs have trouble taking advantage of the economics of mass production. Making a dedicated solar field is far more cost efficient. So much so that nuclear looks pathetic on those same levelized cost studies.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        The project started 10 years ago. Renewables were about to burst open and hit some incredible cost reductions.

        This project looked good at the time.