6 ms·

> the 50-year average real cost of its electricity would be 55 EUR/MWh. In contrast, the recent tenders for offshore wind have yielded a strike of 44 EUR/MWh.

by pyrale 4y ago

> the 50-year average real cost of its electricity would be 55 EUR/MWh. In contrast, the recent tenders for offshore wind have yielded a strike of 44 EUR/MWh. As they say on child toys, battery not included.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yes, neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. Offshore wind does peak in winter along with European demand, nuclear similarly schedules its maintenance and refueling for the summer which helps but both will almost certainly overproduce relative to current demand during the night on a predictable daily schedule if rolled out to any great extent so lithium batteries (in EVs or otherwise) do a lot to integrate their power over the short term as well as the TOU rates France has used for decades to make the most of nuclear power. > EDF advises “The Heures Pleines option will suit you especially if you want to take advantage of price per kWh at the most advantageous to the day (ie 8 hours daily peak)”. Basically if you have a night-storage electric water heater, or storage radiators, then you would be best to choose this option, which provides off peak electricity rates to heat your appliances. See peak and off-peak rates on the EDF website.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > Yes, neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. Nuclear doesn't require storage, it can adapt to evolving demand [1]. I really don't know why people keep repeating that specific misinformation. > as well as the TOU rates France has used for decades to make the most of nuclear power. These contracts (heures creuses) are a legacy of the past, they are designed to be uncompetitive compared to the default rate. [1]: https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo...
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    I'm talking about an economically viable system, not a theoretical one where money doesn't matter. That's why France is at 75% nuclear and uses hydro and gas to fill in and exports power regularly (at least they did when their nuclear plants were all running). You can theoretically go 100% wind if you just build enough of it. No one is doing that because there are better, cheaper options by complementing it with other zero carbon options including storage and transmission.
    - pyrale 4y ago
      > I'm talking about an economically viable system, not a theoretical one where money doesn't matter. Dude, I just gave you an article written by EDF engineers to provide feedback on how plants actually work, it's not a theoretical analysis. Nuclear plants don't depend on alternative sources, and they don't need to export, simply because they regulate their output based on demand. > No one is doing that because there are better, cheaper options by complementing it with other zero carbon options including storage and transmission. Currently, no one is running a country-level grid on renewables alone using storage and transmission. The backup is, so far, always a high-carbon power source.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Yes, and your document notes this reality too: > The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear energy, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, especially compared to fossile sources. Thus, oper- ating at higher load factors is profitable for nuclear power plants as they cannot make savings on fuel costs while not producing electricity. Coal and nuclear are bad at this, that's why they are traditionally "baseload" and other techs are used to complement their strengths and weaknesses to get an economic total grid system.
        pyrale 4y ago
        How is that related to your original claim that: > neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. There is no requirement to adapt demand for nuclear, and even though the availability of zero-cost storage could theoretically improve nuclear's cost-effectiveness, in reality, the cost of storage is greater than potential gains from running nuclear 24/7. > that's why they are traditionally "baseload" The article I provided states, quote: > Nuclear power plants in France and Germany operate in load-following mode. They participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. Right after the snippet you quoted, the following sentence is written: > In France, the impact of load-following on the average unit capacity factor is sometimes estimated at about 1.2%. Maybe you should stop making partial quotes to support repeating lies?

by pyrale 4y ago

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Yes, neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. Offshore wind does peak in winter along with European demand, nuclear similarly schedules its maintenance and refueling for the summer which helps but both will almost certainly overproduce relative to current demand during the night on a predictable daily schedule if rolled out to any great extent so lithium batteries (in EVs or otherwise) do a lot to integrate their power over the short term as well as the TOU rates France has used for decades to make the most of nuclear power. > EDF advises “The Heures Pleines option will suit you especially if you want to take advantage of price per kWh at the most advantageous to the day (ie 8 hours daily peak)”. Basically if you have a night-storage electric water heater, or storage radiators, then you would be best to choose this option, which provides off peak electricity rates to heat your appliances. See peak and off-peak rates on the EDF website.

pyrale 4y ago
> Yes, neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. Nuclear doesn't require storage, it can adapt to evolving demand [1]. I really don't know why people keep repeating that specific misinformation. > as well as the TOU rates France has used for decades to make the most of nuclear power. These contracts (heures creuses) are a legacy of the past, they are designed to be uncompetitive compared to the default rate. [1]: https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-lo...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I'm talking about an economically viable system, not a theoretical one where money doesn't matter. That's why France is at 75% nuclear and uses hydro and gas to fill in and exports power regularly (at least they did when their nuclear plants were all running). You can theoretically go 100% wind if you just build enough of it. No one is doing that because there are better, cheaper options by complementing it with other zero carbon options including storage and transmission.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > I'm talking about an economically viable system, not a theoretical one where money doesn't matter. Dude, I just gave you an article written by EDF engineers to provide feedback on how plants actually work, it's not a theoretical analysis. Nuclear plants don't depend on alternative sources, and they don't need to export, simply because they regulate their output based on demand. > No one is doing that because there are better, cheaper options by complementing it with other zero carbon options including storage and transmission. Currently, no one is running a country-level grid on renewables alone using storage and transmission. The backup is, so far, always a high-carbon power source.
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Yes, and your document notes this reality too: > The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear energy, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, especially compared to fossile sources. Thus, oper- ating at higher load factors is profitable for nuclear power plants as they cannot make savings on fuel costs while not producing electricity. Coal and nuclear are bad at this, that's why they are traditionally "baseload" and other techs are used to complement their strengths and weaknesses to get an economic total grid system.
      - pyrale 4y ago
        How is that related to your original claim that: > neither nuclear nor offshore wind exactly match the demand profile so some kind of storage/demand-response/complementary generation assets etc. is required. There is no requirement to adapt demand for nuclear, and even though the availability of zero-cost storage could theoretically improve nuclear's cost-effectiveness, in reality, the cost of storage is greater than potential gains from running nuclear 24/7. > that's why they are traditionally "baseload" The article I provided states, quote: > Nuclear power plants in France and Germany operate in load-following mode. They participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. Right after the snippet you quoted, the following sentence is written: > In France, the impact of load-following on the average unit capacity factor is sometimes estimated at about 1.2%. Maybe you should stop making partial quotes to support repeating lies?