4 ms·
If you don't know what a term means, try searching for the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_
by manfredo 7y ago
If you don't know what a term means, try searching for the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity
First of all, your claim that countries aren't building new nuclear plants is factually incorrect. China, Korea, and other countries are continuing to build nuclear plants. What you really mean to say is that few Western countries are building nuclear plants, and that's primarily due to an unwillingness to build nuclear plants at any significant scale. Nuclear loses not because it is uncompetitive with solar and wind, but because it is uncompetitive with fossil fuels and because of irrational nuclear phobia that leads to intense opposition to nuclear power construction.
The levelized cost of intermittent sources may be low for the first 20-30% of electricity generation. But every country hits a wall around that figure, because there isn't any cost effective storage solution. If the levelized costs were altered to include energy storage costs to deliver power when power is in demand, intermittent sources would have terrible costs for providing power outside of its peak production time. This is why Germany, California, and every other countries that tries to use solar and wind energy ends up building the same amount of capacity with natural gas plants to fulfill peak demand. Politicians sell the dream of intermittent energy production, then turn around and build gas plants when they realize it's a fantasy.
- pfdietz 7y agoYes, that's what I knew nameplace capacity was. And by that definition, your claim was absurd. Solar doesn't have a higher nameplate capacity, it has higher nameplate capacity per dollar. Your units weren't even right. The intermittency argument you are giving is quite flawed. Solar and wind can go far past 20-30% and still be cheaper than new nuclear. If they are not going higher now it's because of sunk costs in existing generating capacity, the slow growth of demand, and the slow turnover of existing generating capacity.
- manfredo 7y ago> The intermittency argument you are giving is quite flawed. Solar and wind can go far past 20-30% and still be cheaper than new nuclear. I'll believe it when I see it. History so far has demonstrated otherwise. In the meantime, the French are laughing at all of us as they enjoy their cheap, carbon free energy with enough surplus to export 3 billion euros of it.
- pfdietz 7y agoHistory has demonstrated no such thing. The French are also not laughing, since their attempts to build new nuclear plants have gone disastrously wrong. Their nuclear construction industry is in a shambles, losing billions, and had to be bailed out by the government.
- manfredo 7y agoAnd yet, they're still paying well below average energy costs, and emitting a fraction of the carbon as other countries.
- pfdietz 7y agoWe don't actually know what their old nuclear plants cost to build. That information has been conveniently lost, and in any case was mixed up with their military nuclear program. But that's all water under the bridge. Their attempts NOW to build nuclear capacity have demonstrated that they cannot build nukes competitively. The facts on the ground trump what you think should be true.