3 ms·
So, few disagreements with that article. First, why does he discard the idea that nuclear power plants can be fully financed by the state, as RTE assumed in th
by sofixa 4y ago
So, few disagreements with that article.
First, why does he discard the idea that nuclear power plants can be fully financed by the state, as RTE assumed in their report (in which nuclear came out slightly cheaper)? EDF is getting renationalised currently, and honestly financing from private markets something as expensive, crucial and with such a long life doesn't make much sense. A Nuclear Power Plant can operate for many decades (50+ years easily), so even if it breaks even in 40 years, that's completely acceptable for a state and it's budget. Private investors, and private financing, would like returns much easier.
Second, the elephant in the room - not all MWh are equal. When they are produced, and the load factor. Onshore wind, which the author mentions as cheaper, doesn't produce at 100% all the time. Solar is even worse, because at best it could produce energy during half the day. Both are subject to weather, like the few months of clouds and low winds we had last autumn all across Western Europe. To even them out, you either need luck, or storage, lots of it. Price that in, over a 50 year lifespan, and i very much doubt it will come out cheaper.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoHe doesn't claim the state funding Nuclear is a bad idea. He actually claims they'll increasingly have to. What he's complaining about is the same WACC being used for nuclear and wind, when the wind one is much higher than reality, because they are so predictable in terms of how long and how much they take to build. And even with that (and all the other advantages he's willing to give to nuclear, the French still can't make a good case for nuclear. He covers the "not all MWh are equal" thing near the start and correctly counts that as a problem for nuclear, not a benefit. > Its generation profile, “baseload” (i.e. constant production at full capacity) does not actually correspond to what the market demands, and does not easily provide for flexibility, reliability or load following. The fact that our systems have been built around baseload (nuclear and lignite) has pushed us into ways of thinking that are not actually useful - baseload is not enough, and it’s not that useful
- Reason077 4y agoIt’s worth remembering that the “baseload problem” of nuclear and the intermittency problem of renewables both have the same solution: storage technologies.