3 ms·

One issue with these numbers that they are making and apples-to-oranges comparison with non-dispatchable sources (wind and solar) and dispatchable sources. Ther

One issue with these numbers that they are making and apples-to-oranges comparison with non-dispatchable sources (wind and solar) and dispatchable sources. There is value to being able to turn on and off a generation source that isn't accounted for here.

JshWright 10y ago
Sure, but it also doesn't account for the value in not releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants.
- gregwtmtno 10y ago
  I would like to see a price for "Natural Gas + Carbon Capture"
pipio21 10y ago
Also there is great value not having pollutant particles in the air and in the water that will kill your father from cancer when he is 48. There is value not releasing radioactivity in the air from the natural isotopes you find in coal for example too. There is value not having the fish or the cow you eat contaminated by waste. There is value in not having your crops destroyed by acidic water. There is value in having a living coral reef and not being dissolved. I can certify there is value in all of that because I was raised in a coal extracting place. Probably you only know about the part of switching a lever on and off.
epistasis 10y ago
To get those numbers, nuclear is also non-dispatchable, because it must be run continuously except for the small maintenance windows every 18 months. Additionally, the combined cycle power plants that allow for super efficient and cheap fossil fuel plants do not respond quickly to turning on and off; it takes time. With solar and wind, you can choose to not generate but you can't choose to generate if the sun isn't shining. For cheap fossil fuel electricity, you need to plan out a day in advance. It's not so easy to spin a nuclear plant up and down. Peaker plants, that are truly dispatchable, are about the cost of solar+storage on that chart these days.
- fulafel 10y ago
  You can do load following with nuclear, it's done in France.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    Load following will increase the cost, however, which was my point.

JshWright 10y ago

Sure, but it also doesn't account for the value in not releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants.

gregwtmtno 10y ago
I would like to see a price for "Natural Gas + Carbon Capture"

pipio21 10y ago

Also there is great value not having pollutant particles in the air and in the water that will kill your father from cancer when he is 48. There is value not releasing radioactivity in the air from the natural isotopes you find in coal for example too. There is value not having the fish or the cow you eat contaminated by waste. There is value in not having your crops destroyed by acidic water. There is value in having a living coral reef and not being dissolved. I can certify there is value in all of that because I was raised in a coal extracting place. Probably you only know about the part of switching a lever on and off.

epistasis 10y ago

To get those numbers, nuclear is also non-dispatchable, because it must be run continuously except for the small maintenance windows every 18 months. Additionally, the combined cycle power plants that allow for super efficient and cheap fossil fuel plants do not respond quickly to turning on and off; it takes time. With solar and wind, you can choose to not generate but you can't choose to generate if the sun isn't shining. For cheap fossil fuel electricity, you need to plan out a day in advance. It's not so easy to spin a nuclear plant up and down. Peaker plants, that are truly dispatchable, are about the cost of solar+storage on that chart these days.

fulafel 10y ago
You can do load following with nuclear, it's done in France.
- epistasis 10y ago
  Load following will increase the cost, however, which was my point.