4 ms·
I think it's because solar/wind and battery grid storage haven't reached a scale where their limitations are fully priced in yet. It's certainly clear that we
by icegreentea2 5y ago
I think it's because solar/wind and battery grid storage haven't reached a scale where their limitations are fully priced in yet.
It's certainly clear that we want to have the highest proportion of solar/wind possible. What's not clear is how to distribute variability handling between grid-scale storage, nuclear/hydro, and long distance interconnects.
- pfdietz 5y agoWhen prices truly reflect the effects of large amounts of renewables on the grid, nuclear will be screwed. That's because prices will usually be very low (or even negative), and occasionally spike. This is an environment that is quite hostile to expensive baseload sources. Fossil fuels would beat nuclear for exploiting those spikes, even with insanely high CO2 taxes ($1000/ton, say).
- icegreentea2 5y agoMy gut feel is that we'll end up with regulations putting a cap on retail (maybe not for industrial...) price variability and/or inserting in an extra fixed fee (similar to connection fees) in many jurisdictions to help out with keeping baseload around. I haven't done any of the math though. Like I want nuclear to just be cheaper than FF. But shrug.
- pfdietz 5y agoFor decades I was pointing to nuclear as a way out of fossil fuels. But I always added "or renewables if they get cheap enough, which they could if their experience curves keep holding when scaled to global energy demand". And eventually, the renewables did get cheaper. It would have been nice to have CO2 taxes decades ago for an earlier transition away from fossil fuels, but that's water under the bridge. There's no need to stay loyal to nuclear just because one once supported it. It's a technology, not a girlfriend.