5 ms·

You are making my case. Where is the problem with capacity factor? You still havent provided a shred of evidence.

Retric 7y ago
If you want some actual number for France: In 2016 France had 63.1 GWe of nuclear capacity and they generated 403,000 GWh. 403,000 / (63.1 * 24hours * 366 leap year) = 72.7% useful capacity factor. Even with massive exports, France’s low capacity factor increased price per GWh by well over 20% vs the ~90% utilization Nuclear is generally designed for. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... PS: “have already needed to design or convert the majority of their nuclear power plants for flexible operation” This directly says nuclear power plants designed around high capacity factors where a problem which they spent money to fix.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  this directly says that its not a problem. Wind and solar doesent give you this choice but have to use coal, oil, gas and nuclear as backup. The reverse is not true.
  - Retric 7y ago
    As I said several times it’s the dependence on high capacity factors that’s the problem. Wasting significantly more than 20% of all money spent on nuclear in France is a problem. This is a country that can export almost a 1/3 of production and they still end up paying a premium. Run the numbers for Nuclear without exports and France would be paying for ~500+GWh of Nuclear generating capacity could only use ~300GWh per year, in other words to reach 70% of electrical need from Nuclear alone the price goes up by ~67%. Thus large scale nuclear needs grid storage to be cost competitive just as much if not more than solar, except it also costs several times as much. This is why it’s a dead end.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Just because you keep repeating doesn't make it any truer. France doesn't pay a premium, Germany on the other hand does and so does Denmark for their Solar and Wind effection. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... So again you are simply factually incorrect and are just making up claims right now. High capacity factor (Nuclear) means you can trust the stability and in this case the scaleability of the source. Low capacity factor (Wind & Solar) means you can't trust the satbility of the source and it doesn't scale. Instead it needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear. No energy source is without its problems but you've seen to miss the point of this discussion which is what is the best source for stable energy supply. To claim that high capacity factor of nuclear is a problem is simply flat out wrong and you won't find anyone back that claim up.
      - Retric 7y ago
        France subsidizes consumer electric prices where Germany has significant taxes. On the generation side: “In 2014 the rate is €42/MWh, but CRE proposed an increase to €44 in 2015, €46 in 2016 and €48 in 2017 to allow EdF to recover costs of plant upgrades, which it put at €55 billion to extend all 58 reactor lifetimes by ten years. In November 2014 the government froze the price at €42 to mid-2015. This Arenh re-sale price has represented a long-term floor price for EdF’s power, and is nominally based on the cost of production. The industrial group Uniden said that the proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s.” Of note these prices are mostly arbitrary as France’s Nuclear is operating on huge subsidies, but even with that their prices are higher. Thus despite massive economies of scale, Frances Nuclear costs went up. The numbers are even worse when you consider how much debt they have for aging Nuclear reactors which still need to be decommissioned which is going to cost insane amounts of money.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        Germany and Denmark subsidizes way more as you can see on those prices as they are a direct reflection of the fact that it's more expensive to use wind and solar. Furthermore you keep ignoring that wind and solar can't provide without coal, oil, gas or nuclear, the reverse is not true. And thus if you want to compare the cost of nuclear with the cost of wind or solar you of course need to factor in the cost of the backup energy needed which among others include nuclear! So no wind and solar are still much more expensive and doesn't provide stable energy.

If you want some actual number for France: In 2016 France had 63.1 GWe of nuclear capacity and they generated 403,000 GWh. 403,000 / (63.1 * 24hours * 366 leap year) = 72.7% useful capacity factor. Even with massive exports, France’s low capacity factor increased price per GWh by well over 20% vs the ~90% utilization Nuclear is generally designed for. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... PS: “have already needed to design or convert the majority of their nuclear power plants for flexible operation” This directly says nuclear power plants designed around high capacity factors where a problem which they spent money to fix.

ThomPete 7y ago
this directly says that its not a problem. Wind and solar doesent give you this choice but have to use coal, oil, gas and nuclear as backup. The reverse is not true.
- Retric 7y ago
  As I said several times it’s the dependence on high capacity factors that’s the problem. Wasting significantly more than 20% of all money spent on nuclear in France is a problem. This is a country that can export almost a 1/3 of production and they still end up paying a premium. Run the numbers for Nuclear without exports and France would be paying for ~500+GWh of Nuclear generating capacity could only use ~300GWh per year, in other words to reach 70% of electrical need from Nuclear alone the price goes up by ~67%. Thus large scale nuclear needs grid storage to be cost competitive just as much if not more than solar, except it also costs several times as much. This is why it’s a dead end.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Just because you keep repeating doesn't make it any truer. France doesn't pay a premium, Germany on the other hand does and so does Denmark for their Solar and Wind effection. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... So again you are simply factually incorrect and are just making up claims right now. High capacity factor (Nuclear) means you can trust the stability and in this case the scaleability of the source. Low capacity factor (Wind & Solar) means you can't trust the satbility of the source and it doesn't scale. Instead it needs backup from oil, coal, gas or nuclear. No energy source is without its problems but you've seen to miss the point of this discussion which is what is the best source for stable energy supply. To claim that high capacity factor of nuclear is a problem is simply flat out wrong and you won't find anyone back that claim up.
    - Retric 7y ago
      France subsidizes consumer electric prices where Germany has significant taxes. On the generation side: “In 2014 the rate is €42/MWh, but CRE proposed an increase to €44 in 2015, €46 in 2016 and €48 in 2017 to allow EdF to recover costs of plant upgrades, which it put at €55 billion to extend all 58 reactor lifetimes by ten years. In November 2014 the government froze the price at €42 to mid-2015. This Arenh re-sale price has represented a long-term floor price for EdF’s power, and is nominally based on the cost of production. The industrial group Uniden said that the proposed 2015 wholesale price of €44/MWh would be €14 higher than Germany’s.” Of note these prices are mostly arbitrary as France’s Nuclear is operating on huge subsidies, but even with that their prices are higher. Thus despite massive economies of scale, Frances Nuclear costs went up. The numbers are even worse when you consider how much debt they have for aging Nuclear reactors which still need to be decommissioned which is going to cost insane amounts of money.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        Germany and Denmark subsidizes way more as you can see on those prices as they are a direct reflection of the fact that it's more expensive to use wind and solar. Furthermore you keep ignoring that wind and solar can't provide without coal, oil, gas or nuclear, the reverse is not true. And thus if you want to compare the cost of nuclear with the cost of wind or solar you of course need to factor in the cost of the backup energy needed which among others include nuclear! So no wind and solar are still much more expensive and doesn't provide stable energy.