3 ms·

Solar and wind have these economic properties: - the marginal cost of energy is zero (once the investment made producing a kWh is free) - fix costs are almost

by joak 4y ago

Solar and wind have these economic properties: - the marginal cost of energy is zero (once the investment made producing a kWh is free) - fix costs are almost zero For the nuclear energy we have the following: - the marginal cost of energy is low (the cost of the uranium mostly) - the fix costs are incredibly high (wether the reactor produce or not, the payroll is the same, the maintenance cost are the same, etc...) So what happens: on sunny or windy days the regulation imposes solar and wind producers to curtail their production. They are forbade to distribute their free kWh, because otherwise the "baseline" producers (nuclear and coal mostly) will have to stop their facilities or sell their kWh at market price. In both cases they would lose money. Solar and wind intermittency means the following: you cannot switch them on at will. Nuclear plants have the opposite problem: you cannot switch them off without bleeding money. The solution for solar and wind is: install enough capacity so the worst day of the year (in winter with little wind) you produce enough to cover the needs. If you add storage and/or long distance distribution you can lower the requirement for total installed capacity. In this context the only solution for nuclear is the following: you lobby the government to make regulations in your favor and cover your losses. Otherwise you bankrupt. On the long run I bet on bankruptcy.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
No one is going to build 10x as many wind turbines as they need to make sure the grid is still up. It's not going to happen unless someone comes up with grid scale storage that can power the entire electric grid for at least 12 hours and in a lot of places 16 hours when the sun/wind isn't available. Nuclear is the only reasonable option we have.
- idlehand 4y ago
  On a continent-wide grid, there will likely be some wind somewhere, and some pumped hydro ready to take advantage of the low prices. We'll also see micro-storage developing to take advantage of electricity price variability. EVs will charge when electricity is cheapest, household water might be warmed during the day when solar energy is available, etc. Unfortunately losing nuclear means that we lose the potential for a self-sufficient regional grid. But since the costs of losing base load power are largely offloaded from national budgets, instead showing up as new costs for consumers and companies, it's a lot easier for a politician to advocate for renewables. No need to spend taxpayer money on a project that won't be finished in the 4 years that matter to your government.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  So, we will build grid-scale storage. It will be massively cheaper than nukes would have been. Masively cheaper even than keeping them operating, too. So they will be mothballed. But we don't need 10x overbuild: the wind is always blowing somewhere. If not here, there. If not there, here or somewhere else.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    We don't have anything that can handle more than an hour or two at the big Gigawatt solar/wind generators and you know it, none of them can economically provide even power at night let alone during peak demand periods. All they can do is help smooth out fluctuations for temporary cloud cover/no wind conditions and such. Technology will have to have a 10x leap or we'll have to wait 30 years for incremental improvements in battery tech to get there. Nuclear is available now. With a "to the moon or bust" attitude that we had in the 60s we could be there in less than 10 years.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Before you build a thing, it has not been built yet. To have that thing, you have to build it first. Having built it, you then have it. No breakthroughs of any kind are needed for grid-scale storage. It is just civil engineering. It won't be batteries. Nukes have never, at any time or place, anywhere in the world, operated without massive public subsidy. There is no reason to expect that ever to change.

by joak 4y ago

stjohnswarts 4y ago

No one is going to build 10x as many wind turbines as they need to make sure the grid is still up. It's not going to happen unless someone comes up with grid scale storage that can power the entire electric grid for at least 12 hours and in a lot of places 16 hours when the sun/wind isn't available. Nuclear is the only reasonable option we have.

idlehand 4y ago
On a continent-wide grid, there will likely be some wind somewhere, and some pumped hydro ready to take advantage of the low prices. We'll also see micro-storage developing to take advantage of electricity price variability. EVs will charge when electricity is cheapest, household water might be warmed during the day when solar energy is available, etc. Unfortunately losing nuclear means that we lose the potential for a self-sufficient regional grid. But since the costs of losing base load power are largely offloaded from national budgets, instead showing up as new costs for consumers and companies, it's a lot easier for a politician to advocate for renewables. No need to spend taxpayer money on a project that won't be finished in the 4 years that matter to your government.
ncmncm 4y ago
So, we will build grid-scale storage. It will be massively cheaper than nukes would have been. Masively cheaper even than keeping them operating, too. So they will be mothballed. But we don't need 10x overbuild: the wind is always blowing somewhere. If not here, there. If not there, here or somewhere else.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  We don't have anything that can handle more than an hour or two at the big Gigawatt solar/wind generators and you know it, none of them can economically provide even power at night let alone during peak demand periods. All they can do is help smooth out fluctuations for temporary cloud cover/no wind conditions and such. Technology will have to have a 10x leap or we'll have to wait 30 years for incremental improvements in battery tech to get there. Nuclear is available now. With a "to the moon or bust" attitude that we had in the 60s we could be there in less than 10 years.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Before you build a thing, it has not been built yet. To have that thing, you have to build it first. Having built it, you then have it. No breakthroughs of any kind are needed for grid-scale storage. It is just civil engineering. It won't be batteries. Nukes have never, at any time or place, anywhere in the world, operated without massive public subsidy. There is no reason to expect that ever to change.