5 ms·

Hinckley Point C in the UK has a contract for £92.50MWH [1]. Given that some other operators have pulled out suggests that isn't overly high, but as wind is cur

• godelski 7y ago
  > Further, nuclear isn't a particularly good match for renewables because it isn't as dispatchable as other options. I do want to remind you: no one that is pro-nuclear is anti-renewable. I'd say that if they are pro-nuclear they are very likely pro-renewable. The thing though is that you're drastically over simplifying the energy problem. Battery technology just isn't there yet (they just have nowhere near the energy density, even the most advanced batteries are dwarfed by the energy density of basic fossil fuels[0]). Until then we have to face the duck curve. So what are our choices? Natural gas, coal, nuclear. Take your pick. We need energy sources that can be throttled up and down and can produce continual amounts of energy. Renewable just can't do this without batteries, and batteries aren't there. So it isn't that we don't want renewables, it is that we have picked nuclear vs fossil fuels. [0] https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EnergyDensity.jpg https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Energ...
  • benj111 7y ago
    Hey, I wouldn't put myself in the Anti nuclear camp. Its just the costs, they're high and increasing. My point about nuclear not being dispatchable is that if wind is going to be the cheap backbone, then any expensive generation has to find a niche that works around that. Nuclear doesn't have that niche. I seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? Where after all the politicking you've spent 10 years before you've even broken ground.
    • godelski 7y ago
      > has to find a niche that works around that. Nuclear doesn't have that >> Until then we have to face the duck curve. So what are our choices? Natural gas, coal, nuclear. Take your pick. I'm not sure if you read that part, so I am quoting myself. I'm getting to the fact that renewables aren't constant energy producers (major part of my post. Pretty much the only part actually). > seem to be taking a longer view than you, maybe in the 20 - 30 year time frame you're right. I mean... my whole point is about combating climate change. I'm definitely thinking much longer than 20-30 years. > But in that sort of time frame is it even worth trying to start building a new nuclear power station? > I seem to be taking a longer view than you, These comments seem to be in contention. I'll let you resolve it before I respond any more.
      • benj111 7y ago
        Re long term, I mean I'm thinking of how I can see the grid ideally looking, not in the transitional phase we are in now. Sure if we plonked down a nuclear reactor now, that would be good, absenting cost, but it isn't going to be ready now, or in 10 years, so we need to be looking at what the grid will be looking like, and I hope by that point the grid will be well on the way being green so this power station will be competing against wind and solar, not coal and gas. Re renewables not being constant. That's my point, and nuclear isn't flexible enough to take advantage. You can make the case for £100mwh batteries because they can step in instantly, nuclear can't, and also, when the winds blowing that's always going to be cheaper, so the massive fixed costs of nuclear get amortized over less and less MWHs.
        • mavhc 7y ago
          There's no way to make enough batteries for 100% renewable grid, everyone on the planet would need an electric car sized battery, which means you'd need 10000 gigafactories iirc. Which is why I suggested 50% nuclear, 50% renewable. That's still about 100x more renewable than we have today
          • benj111 7y ago