3 ms·

New nuclear (Hinkley C) in the uk costs £92.50/MWh -- 3200MWe, operational from 2025 Proposed new offshore wind farms cost £40/MWh, operational from 2023/2024

New nuclear (Hinkley C) in the uk costs £92.50/MWh -- 3200MWe, operational from 2025 Proposed new offshore wind farms cost £40/MWh, operational from 2023/2024 Nuclear was the answer 15 years ago. It's not now.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Nuclear is still the answer to "what about baseline demand". Battery storage is possibly going to fit in there, but it doesn't do it yet. Tidal, ground source, gravity/momentum/compression/latent-heat storage solutions, some of these might do. I think we need at least one more cycle of Nuclear power plants. Perhaps then we'll have workable fission.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Possibly, but it seems exceptionally expensive and slow for what you get. Sods law will say if you don't invest in nuclear, you'll be using a lot more CCGT because storage or large-geography interconnects won't be there But if you do invest, you'll end up being stuck with something costing far more than commodity renewables+storage We have "workable fission" now, it's just very expensive. Workable fusion is always a generation away.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Sorry, yes, obvious typo fission -> fusion. It does feel like Tokamak will never arrive. An acquaintance did their doctorate last year on modelling some aspect of the containment; they didn't seem hopeful.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Nuclear might have been an answer ten years ago, but one cannot make the case today that it is the answer. The raw economics have pushed nuclear out of the picture now.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Go on, so what do you propose for baseline power - more gas fired power stations?
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Renewables + storage. For long term storage and covering rare extended dark windless periods, the key is hydrogen, for which the cost per kWh for underground storage can be far lower than for batteries (efficiency is lower, but that's ok.) If you go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and optimize such systems in various places, using real weather data, you find nuclear (called "Dispatchable 2" in the advanced options) get optimized to 0%. It's just too expensive. That site uses plausible cost numbers, except electrolysers are already cheaper than their target cost for 2030.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Nuclear is still the answer to "what about baseline demand". Battery storage is possibly going to fit in there, but it doesn't do it yet. Tidal, ground source, gravity/momentum/compression/latent-heat storage solutions, some of these might do. I think we need at least one more cycle of Nuclear power plants. Perhaps then we'll have workable fission.

iso1631 6y ago
Possibly, but it seems exceptionally expensive and slow for what you get. Sods law will say if you don't invest in nuclear, you'll be using a lot more CCGT because storage or large-geography interconnects won't be there But if you do invest, you'll end up being stuck with something costing far more than commodity renewables+storage We have "workable fission" now, it's just very expensive. Workable fusion is always a generation away.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Sorry, yes, obvious typo fission -> fusion. It does feel like Tokamak will never arrive. An acquaintance did their doctorate last year on modelling some aspect of the containment; they didn't seem hopeful.
pfdietz 6y ago
Nuclear might have been an answer ten years ago, but one cannot make the case today that it is the answer. The raw economics have pushed nuclear out of the picture now.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Go on, so what do you propose for baseline power - more gas fired power stations?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    Renewables + storage. For long term storage and covering rare extended dark windless periods, the key is hydrogen, for which the cost per kWh for underground storage can be far lower than for batteries (efficiency is lower, but that's ok.) If you go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and optimize such systems in various places, using real weather data, you find nuclear (called "Dispatchable 2" in the advanced options) get optimized to 0%. It's just too expensive. That site uses plausible cost numbers, except electrolysers are already cheaper than their target cost for 2030.