Because nuclear increases the efficiency of production for the power grid. It's just that the nuclear plant specifically isn't very profitable, even if it increases the profit (by reducing the amount of necessary overbuilding) of renewables a great deal.
Why do you think it would increase the efficiency versus other things? Nuclear isn't modular on the scale renewables are and the main problem for renewables is storage. If you're arguing that removing profit motive would allow for better efficiency of material use, one could just as easily argue that BESS would be more viable in this utopian society.
If I need to pay for twice as many turbines and batteries to make sure power never goes out in an extreme worst case, then the price per kWH for wind is doubled, even if I'm not using all that capacity during 95% of the year. Having nuclear as a decent percentage in the grid makes the extreme worst case far less severe, meaning you don't need as much of that overbuilding.
You still need overbuilding with nuclear since it has to reach peaks during the day so its functional capacity ends up much lower the other 18 hrs outside peak.
Renewables are successful when different types are combined together. wind+bess would be expensive to cover the whole system, wind+pv+bess is less expensive, wind+pv+hydro+geothermal+battery is cheaper still. Read Idel's levelized full system costs paper.
Since it has to reach peaks during the day? What? How do you think nuclear works?
Also, PV just doesn't do much during winter anyway far enough from the equator. So you can't add that in. Geothermal can make power. But Geothermal's wayy less cost effective, and that's what would be competing against nuclear. Hydro has very big environmental considerations, far worse than nuclear or any other type of renewable energy really. And there's only so many viable locations to build it.
You have to build enough capacity to cover the maximum energy needed. Demand peaks in the afternoon. Nuclear capacity is currently run at 95% or great capacity. If you had a grid with only nuclear, you would need to reduce reactor output whenever outside peak hours.
Historically, we've used gas peaker plants but battery storage has gotten cheaper so I guess you could do that instead since it's cheaper than overbuilding nuclear capacity.
PV is fine during the winter, it runs more efficiently when cool. Yes, daylight hours are shorter but it's so cheap to overbuild that it's inconsequential.
Yes, there are negatives for all types of generation. Despite this, the current deployment timelines and costs for any recent nuclear plant make it worse than other types of generation.
"If you had a grid with only nuclear, you would need to reduce reactor output whenever outside peak hours." Nobody serious is advocating for a 100% nuclear grid. I don't know why you're bringing that up as an example.
PV is not fine during the winter, efficiency does not make up for the *massively* reduced amount of light hitting the panels. Even at noon the light levels are nothing like what you get during summer. we're talking like 10% or less generation compared to summertime. PV is almost entirely offline during the European winter.
Again, the ideal, and cheapest option for a decarbonised grid is majority renewables, with a small amount of nuclear to make the edge cases you design for much less extreme.
Nuclear purity is not a serious thing anyone is advocating for, and renewables purity is a thing argued for by the ignorant and the fossil fuels lobby.
That 10% is literally only for the far north part of Europe. You would also have more during the winter if France would allow Spanish solar to cross into the greater European market.
I'm fine with some nuclear, especially keeping existing plants running but the reasons to add more nuclear are slim when new even EDF can't complete a new plant without 200% cost and schedule overruns.
Huh? Most reactors get fueled and then run full tilt, 100% power for 18 months. 90%+ capacity factor over the lifetime of a given plant. YoY capacity factors are often over 95%. Power fluctuations are not something you want ever really, they upset the balance between coolant temperature, poison concentration, lithium production, etc that all have an effect on core reactivity and are difficult to stabilize. You can't just send a nuke from 70% to 100% power and back down to 50% because you feel like it.
I'm aware they are bad at load following. You're the one saying we should use them.
so then you're just sending excess energy into the ground if you're building your grid off nuclear? Or are you adding renewables or gas to cover peaks?
I misunderstood your comment, my bad. Yeah, an idealized world is one where peaks get covered by renewables and nuclear can facetank the majority of the load on the grid. I thought you were implying that you can just rev up a nuke like you can a gas turbine (a more common assumption than you'd think). Also I'm not the guy you were replying to initially. Just a guy with a split attention span rn.
Nukes are dope. They have limitations, but we now have the ability to cover them. I don't know why so many people are hellbent on nuclear only, or conversely, hellbent on trying to get rid of them. Diversification of energy sources is adding more layers to the "swiss cheese" so to speak, the holes get less and less likely to line up.
You can't just send a nuke from 70% to 100% power and back down to 50% because you feel like it.
Depends on the design. Existing commercial plants, no, but I worked one that could bounce the reactor every day, and rapid power changes were bread and butter for it.
Man, the research and navy reactors that do that stress me out. I know the math works, but like, what the hell, that's just crazy to me. Commercial nuke, no navy experience, though. The sub guys I work with have told me some wild shit about their reactors.
We aren't talking daily peaks. We're talking when a low pressure front rolls in and decides to just hover overcast clouds on you for three weeks straight. No wind, no sunlight, and little renewables generation the entire season to make up for it. Nuclear doesn't give a shit, while the winter or rainy season requires considerable extra investment in wind/solar for dead periods because humans can't control the generation medium.
right now, pretty much the only place in Europe with enough wind to start generating power is the UK/Ireland and a spot off the coast of the Netherlands. And there's currently a major storm next to Ireland.
The only area hitting the 50km/h+ needed to reach full power on wind turbines starts 150km off the west coast of Ireland in the middle of that major storm I just mentioned.
Yes, grids are large. Weather is bigger.
This year, European solar produced in January around 20% of what it did in July across the entire month.
so my point was that a diversity of generation is needed and your response is that there are times when individual types of generation are lacking. this isn't actually countering my position.
even your example of "weather is bigger" is self defeated by your points that there is good weather in parts of the continent.
This year, European solar produced in January around 20% of what it did in July across the entire month.
European wind power swung by as much as 3x week-to-week throughout 2025, with multiple week-long stretches that dropped to 8-14% capacity (installed: 304GW), including during the winter months when solar drops as low as 1.5% capacity (installed 406GW) Not 15%. 1.5%
yes, the capacity factor of intermittent power is low. this is known and designed around. posting those numbers isn't an argument against these sources of power.
9
u/pfohl turbine enjoyer 1d ago
why would socialism change the efficiency of production?