"Renewables are cheapest when they can be used directly. If you can use lots of them to cover the direct consumption, more energy is produced at a lower price. Instead, when you using it for storage, it's more expensive, because storage costs will be added. If renewables can be used to cover the entire load when available, the ratio of a plant of direct usage/indirect usage is bigger, thus the energy will be cheaper. But if nuclear covers the base load, the same energy can not be used from renewables production, thus lowering that ratio and making renewables more expensive. Of course you could say that the nuclear energy goes into storages, when renewables are available, but this would make nuclear even more expensive and unprofitable than it already is. This is under the assumption that nuclear reactors won't be turnes off/ or their production won't be reduced.

Although it would be possible to lower the production of nuclear reactors if needed, but this would lower theie efficiency and their life expectancy. It would also raise the need for maintance. That would result in lower energy production over life time and reducde life expectancy even further. Also cost/per life would raise, because of more maintenance and the need ro repair and replacement of parts like valves, pipes etc, because those parts would be stressed way more by the change of temperature (basic thermodynamics). All in all it results in less energy production/time unit, lower life expectancy and higher investment costs. All of it increasing the price/kwh number or LCC/LCOE/LCEA... whatever you want to call it. (and also LCA impacts)

At the end, you can say both. Either the price of renewables goes up or the price of nuclear goes up. It's tom8o tomato. It depends how you write it down on your paper sheet. Both have a bad synergy. But of course people will put the "storage burden" on the renewables, to make nuclear look less unprofitable.

---The only thing I can think of is them being unprofitable if the KWH price drops below production price.

Basically this. But if you have both, nuclear and renewables, you'll have this situation way more frequently. But because of contracts (which you need if you want base load production for +50 years) all that burden will be put on renewables and nuclear can ignore this.

You can also say, let's build less renewables, then the price will be more stable, but renewables are cheaper. If you reduce the cheap option, the ratio will go up.

----maybe even having to pay for more power grid costs due to the higher load on the power grid like the netherlands is facing with its "full" power grid causing powercompanies (eneco) to want to start charging people for delivering power back to the powergrid.

Different story, same answer. It will happen more frequently, if you have both, NR and RE. Except if you decide to reduce RE capacity. But like I said, reducing the cheaper energy form will raise the ratio at the end. Also this would be a very strange move. Before asking the small producers for money, they could turn off their bigger plants. But of course this would be less profitable for them than demanding money from the customers and leaving their plants on the grid, producing money. There are storage technologies (better suited for that specific situation than hydrogen/co2-reduction, at least for the part which is to fluctuating for electrolysis) which would be way better alternatives (eg. compressed air storage) when the available batteries are fully loaded. If not, you can just load the batteries, right?

-----like we will need anyway without nuclear since renewables aren't 100% online right?

Yes, we will need them with or without nuclear. Nuclear would just change the amount we would need. Like I said in the beginning, nuclear would raise the ratio of renewable energy which would have to go into storage, making renewables more expensive in average. That's the biggest downside of nuclear. It doesn't really solves the storage problem, it just makes it a little smaller. But brings lots of other downsides if combined with renewables."

Nu jā viss pareizi viņi drusku pārspīlē ar baidīšanos.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

kas ir viņi?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ierēdņi

(Reply to this) (Parent)

// Like I said in the beginning, nuclear would raise the ratio of renewable energy which would have to go into storage, making renewables more expensive in average. That's the biggest downside of nuclear.//

Ja tas ir ērtāks un padara dārgāku renewable enerģiju tad lietojam vairāk AES mazāk renewable, viss kedā

(Reply to this) (Thread)

nu, lietojiet uz veselību, ko lai saka.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu jā no reaktoriem enerģija vienkārši konstanti visu laiku ir, nav jāiespringst uz taupīšanu, nav jāiespringst uz uzglabāšanu

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

žēl tikai, ka nav to reaktoru.

paldies, šodien mazliet palasīju politinformāciju un uzzināju jaunu faktu. reku meme par tēmu, jo šodien man tādas sajūtas, ka gribās memes postēt

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tev ir tieksme argumentu vietā likt muļķīgas bildītes. Un nē mēs nebūsim atkarīgi no krievijas un ķīnas, reku karte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves

pilna austrālija ar urāna rūdu, vajag tikai rakt :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

piedod par bildītēm, saprotu, nopietni cilvēki tā neuzvedās.

man tev ir sliktas ziņas.
HALEU is not yet widely available commercially. At present only Russia and China have the infrastructure to produce HALEU at scale. Centrus Energy, in the United States, began producing HALEU from a demonstration-scale cascade in October 2023.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu tātad jābūvē bagātināšanas rūpnīcas, cpt obvious, es tak visu laiku saku ka Rietumu pasaulei nepieciešams uzbūvēt pabeigtu nukleāro infrastruktūru no rūdas līdz elektrībai. Vajag būvēt, nevajag zaļbremzēt.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ko tu rekomendē darīt līdz tam? līdz tiks uzbūvēta visa nepieciešamā infrastruktūra, kuru vēl īsti neviens nav sācis būvēt. tie ir minimums 30 gadi.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Pirkt no Krievijas un Ķīnas un strauji sākt būvēt pašiem. Nu apmēram tas ko USA jau dara, strauji ņemt no viņiem piemēru.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

T.i. ja mēs nākamo 50 gadu laikā kļūstam enerģētiski neatkarīgi no Krievijas un Ķīnas, tas ir okej, varētu gribēties ātrāk, bet nu te limitācija ir būvēšanas tempos, cik ātri var tik ātri var.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

es zinu šādas tādas alternatīvas, kurām nav šādu limitāciju. ko darīt, kā būt?

tava atbilde ir turpināt atbalstīt krievijas karu turpmākās daudz desmitgades? jauk

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Tās šādas tādas alternatīvas visas ir saistītas ar sevis ierobežošanu, tas atkrīt.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

par kādu sevis ierobežošanu tu visu laiku runā?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Elektrības sakarā viss šiotas managament of demands

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

joprojām nesaprotu, bet nav arī tā, ka ļoti interesētu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Bottomline - mums vajag tik daudz enerģijas lai nav jādomā par taupīšanu vispār, tas ir normālais līmenis.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ko tik mums visu nevajag.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Normālu dzīvi jā. Ērtu, normālu, bagātu.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Ko arī dara amerikāņi kā redzams. Tagad Eiropas kārta būvēt bagātināšanas rūpnīcas vai nu te pie mums vai austrālijā, vislabāk gan gan

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

demonstration-scale. lai ir ko parādīt. mhm.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu jā tā tas strādā, uzbēvē, paskatās kā strādā, pārbauda visu, tad būvē nākamos blokus un cehus.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

nuja, mani mazbērni iespējams piedzīvos to visu, mhm. maz ticams, bet iespēja pastāv.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu ļoti jauki, varbūt mazbērni, varbūt pats, ja uploadosies :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

neviens no mums neaplodosies, romantiska pasaciņa.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nesaki par visiem, es personiski to darīšu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

mhm, gluži kā kristieši brauks debesīs.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Kristieši gaida uz gigalaumiņu, mēs visu daram paši, feel the razņica :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

īsti ne. viņi arī paši lūdz, nožēlo, baznīcas ceļ, glābj un ko tik vēl ne.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nu jā bet centrā gigalaumiņa, kura nav no viņiem atkarīga :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

gluži kā tev neesoša tehnoloģija.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Neesošu tehnoloģiju var radīt, kas pašlaik arī pamazām notiek.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tam var noticēt, jā, sevišķi, ja ļoti gribas, lai tā būtu
īsti pamatojuma ticēt nav, gluži kā kristiešiem, bet kad ta tas ir traucējies? :D

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Tur nav jātic, tur ir jāmēra, jārēķina, jākosntruē. Ticēšana paliek ticīgajiem.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

iesākumā tākā derētu saprast kā smadzenes strādā, ne? bet tā jau kaut kāda neinteresanta bioloģija.
vot, ja saprastu, tad būtu visnotaļ skaidrs, ka bez wetvāres nekas nebūs, nemaz nerunājot par to, ka mums ir ļoti švaka nojausma kā viss notiek. kaut vai tas cik ļoti mūsu uzvedību ietekmē zarnu mikrofloras stāvoklis. vispār nav skaidrs kā smadzenes spēja ar tik minimālu enerģijas patēriņu nodrošināt tādas skaitļošanas jaudas, bet tev viss ir skaidrs? vēl mazliet jāpaciešas un varēsim nosimulēt? ticības jautājums, žēl, ka esmu neticīgais.

dažādu tehnoloģiju piejemība ļauj labāk izmērīt un saprast, ka nu dikti maz saprotam. bet tu būvē būvē, tas tak ir skaisti, baznīcas arī ir skaisti.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

//iesākumā tākā derētu saprast kā smadzenes strādā, ne?//

Vispārīgi tas protams ir vajadzīgs, bet konkrēti šim pielietojumam nē. Tās ir par kopēšanu. Tu vari nokopēt grāmatu arī ja tu nezini valodu kādā viņa ir sarakstīta.

Par zarnām utt- jā principā protams ietekmē, bet nebūtiski. Kā es to zinu? Vienkārši - persona pēc zarnu rezekcijas ir tā poati persona kas pirsm tam.

(Reply to this) (Parent)