4 ms·
>Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build. That's not necessarily true as countries like China are building new nuclear r
by eldaisfish 6y ago
>Nuclear is extraordinarily expensive and often takes decades to plan and build.
That's not necessarily true as countries like China are building new nuclear reactors in 4-5 years. Remember that nuclear is one of the few industries that designs for the worst case scenario which is part of the high cost. The other component of the high cost is often policy and overzealous bureaucracy.
>On grids that still have gas & coal fired power stations, every GWh of electricity produced from renewables displaces a GWh that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels.
This is not true. A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%. A hydro plant often runs at > 80% capacity factor.
- Reason077 6y ago> "A kWh from a wind turbine is absolutely not equal to a kWh from a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro plant due to the fact that the capacity factor for a typical wind turbine is around 20-30%." No, a kWh of energy produced by a wind turbine absolutely is equal to a kWh produced by any other means. You'd be correct to say that a kW of capacity is not equal. (ie: a 1 GW wind farm may not produce as much energy as a 1 GW nuclear plant, but 1 GWh of energy is 1 GWh of energy, no matter what source produces it). For what it's worth, UK off-shore wind farms currently have load factors of between 39 and 47%, and these are predicted to exceed 50% by 2035. Source: https://renews.biz/55349/uk-offshore-wind-load-factors-to-exceed-50/ https://renews.biz/55349/uk-offshore-wind-load-factors-to-ex...
- eldaisfish 6y agoyes, that's correct. i used the wrong idea there.