2 ms·

Look at the chart, the seasonal variation in wind generation can be as large as 4x: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.02.25/main.png https://www.ei

Look at the chart, the seasonal variation in wind generation can be as large as 4x: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.02.25/main.png https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2015.02.25/main.png Overproduction without storage results in diminishing returns, as most of the excess energy is wasted. "New nuclear" is 4-8x more expensive than nuclear power built at scale. When multiple copies of the same plant design built in series, costs in the range of $1-2 billion per GW is typical. And remember, that's a GW of generation with >90% capacitor factor, as compared to 25-35% for most renewables.

ncmncm 5y ago
"Wasted" solar and wind power was free. Overprovisioned renewable capacity is cheap. Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to income. Wasted nuke overcapacity is very, very expensive. To see what later copies of existing nukes cost, we need look no further than Vogtle.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to income. Except we have no way of building grid scale storage. Again, we have a few minutes of storage. Until then, wind and solar is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels. We have no plan to get rid of the fossil fuels until a storage breakthrough occurs. > To see what later copies of existing nukes cost, we need look no further than Vogtle. Like I said: building one power plant of a given design is way more expensive than building repeated copies of the same design. There were dozens of nuclear projects that had a cost to energy production ratio of less than a fifth of Vogtle.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    We have many ways of building grid scale storage. All we lack is certainty about which kind will end up cheapest. It just isn't built out yet. Building out storage will be premature until after there is enough extra renewable generating capacity to charge it from. If lots of projects would have been cheaper than Vogtle, we may reasonably conclude that they didn't want one cheaper than Vogtle: it would have left too little scope for corruption and graft. Corruption is the ever-present companion of all nuke projects. Any nuke project without a ready conduit for graft will not be funded.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Real research on this looks at hour by hour demand and weather records in specific locations. If you use more energy in the winter, and wind power works better in the winter, you've got a positive correlation. You don't just assume you need an average output equal to the max demand. And the price for solar is based on generation, not capacity. > The LCOE "represents the average revenue per unit of electricity generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle", and is calculated as the ratio between all the discounted costs over the lifetime of an electricity generating plant divided by a discounted sum of the actual energy amounts delivered.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Real research examine both hour by hour and seasonal variations. Both must be offset either by storage and/or overproduction. Unfortunately for the US, energy use is highest in the summer when wind is producing the least amount of energy. And then there's the hour-by hour variations on top of that. Wind production: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112 Energy use: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

ncmncm 5y ago

"Wasted" solar and wind power was free. Overprovisioned renewable capacity is cheap. Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to income. Wasted nuke overcapacity is very, very expensive. To see what later copies of existing nukes cost, we need look no further than Vogtle.

Manuel_D 5y ago
> Charging storage, later, from overprovisioned renewable capacity, or connecting to the power grid and selling on the open market, converts overproduction to income. Except we have no way of building grid scale storage. Again, we have a few minutes of storage. Until then, wind and solar is really wind, solar, and fossil fuels. We have no plan to get rid of the fossil fuels until a storage breakthrough occurs. > To see what later copies of existing nukes cost, we need look no further than Vogtle. Like I said: building one power plant of a given design is way more expensive than building repeated copies of the same design. There were dozens of nuclear projects that had a cost to energy production ratio of less than a fifth of Vogtle.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We have many ways of building grid scale storage. All we lack is certainty about which kind will end up cheapest. It just isn't built out yet. Building out storage will be premature until after there is enough extra renewable generating capacity to charge it from. If lots of projects would have been cheaper than Vogtle, we may reasonably conclude that they didn't want one cheaper than Vogtle: it would have left too little scope for corruption and graft. Corruption is the ever-present companion of all nuke projects. Any nuke project without a ready conduit for graft will not be funded.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Real research on this looks at hour by hour demand and weather records in specific locations. If you use more energy in the winter, and wind power works better in the winter, you've got a positive correlation. You don't just assume you need an average output equal to the max demand. And the price for solar is based on generation, not capacity. > The LCOE "represents the average revenue per unit of electricity generated that would be required to recover the costs of building and operating a generating plant during an assumed financial life and duty cycle", and is calculated as the ratio between all the discounted costs over the lifetime of an electricity generating plant divided by a discounted sum of the actual energy amounts delivered.

Manuel_D 5y ago
Real research examine both hour by hour and seasonal variations. Both must be offset either by storage and/or overproduction. Unfortunately for the US, energy use is highest in the summer when wind is producing the least amount of energy. And then there's the hour-by hour variations on top of that. Wind production: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112 Energy use: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915