3 ms·
This is definitely not my area of expertise, but I found John Platt's work on modeling the marginal cost of energy a pretty compelling counter-argument https://
by Eridrus 8y ago
This is definitely not my area of expertise, but I found John Platt's work on modeling the marginal cost of energy a pretty compelling counter-argument https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289 https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub46289
The gist is that after ~30-40% penetration, the cost of renewables, even with storage, is no longer cheaper than natural gas.
And while storage bends the curve, getting from 80% renewables to 100% without something dispatchable is very expensive.
I don't think this is necessarily important for nuclear, since we could have Gas+CCS, but I have lower hopes for pure renewables+storage.
- pfdietz 8y agoIt's conceivable that renewables + fossil w. CCS will be the cheaper solution, at least until the fossil fuels run out. One could, for example, reform NG to hydrogen and CO2, then sequester the CO2 and store the H2 for use in peaking turbines. This would fit nicely with renewables. It would leave little room for nuclear.