3 ms·
> Onshore wind is already much cheaper than than nuclear. Except that it cannot possibly produce enough to replace nuclear or meet demand. And nuclear is not
by NotPaidToPost 7y ago
> Onshore wind is already much cheaper than than nuclear.
Except that it cannot possibly produce enough to replace nuclear or meet demand.
And nuclear is not more expensive than _offshore_ wind, which will also struggle to produce enough.
As discussed in this thread, people keep ignoring that raw cost per kWh is just one of the parameters. Another key parameter is that production must be able to meet demand.
At the moment it is simply not possible to operate only on wind and solar.
This becomes is more true when you account for the boom in electricity needs that is coming because electric cars.
- wongarsu 7y agoIn the UK offshore wind seems only 10% more expensive than nuclear right now [1]. I think it's fair to assume that over the majority of the operating time of a nuclear plant that starts construction today offshore wind will be cheaper than that nuclear plant. As a private plant operator that isn't also the grid operator I don't really care though about meeting demand. I care about a slightly different metric: can I sell my electricity at a higher price than it takes me to produce it? Of course if nobody can meet demand, prices tend towards infinity and I'm happy. Maybe that happens often enough that I can still make a profit despite all the times I make a loss when wind is too strong and electricity prices are too low. Growing demand is a good point that might help. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United%20Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...