4 ms·

I wouldn't say 100%, best case economically is somewhere closer to 60% unless you build huge hydropower. With that, 100% is feasible. That said, do you know wh

I wouldn't say 100%, best case economically is somewhere closer to 60% unless you build huge hydropower. With that, 100% is feasible. That said, do you know what's the highest uptake (in percentage power capacity) of renewables not including hydroelectric nor biofuels in your country? Here in Poland it is laughably low. Germany is not doing much better either. So "we theoretically could" does not mean we will.

pfdietz 7y ago
No, you can get to 100%. A key is hydrogen (or perhaps ammonia) to handle rare long lulls in production. The round trip efficiency on that is lousy, but the capital cost is low (which is more important for that segment). A simple cycle gas turbine plant is only 5% of the cost of a nuclear plant of the same rated power. Try playing with this online modeling tool: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ With the plausible numbers there, new nuclear is optimized out of the mix. This will be more expensive than fossil fuels with free CO2 release, but presumably CO2 taxes get ramped up to the point that's no longer true.