3 ms·

>They barely broke even at 90+% capacity factors It never broke even anywhere. It's the most subsidy addicted form of power. >Unfortunately, renewables cause

by pydry 4y ago

>They barely broke even at 90+% capacity factors It never broke even anywhere. It's the most subsidy addicted form of power. >Unfortunately, renewables cause similar issues. If solar tanks wholesale prices for 8 hours a day nuclear needs to make that up on the other 16. Wind can make a lot of that up. Solar and wind anti-correlate. Those dark, cold winters also tend to be the windiest and vice versa. Apparently we'd need 5 hours of storage to get to a 97% carbon free grid under current usage patterns: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Australia is already on track to have half of that already with snowy 2 (350Gwh). This also doesn't take into account stuff like https://octopus.energy/agile/ https://octopus.energy/agile/ that can use pricing to adjust demand to supply. Heating, car battery charging, industrial processes like aluminum smelting - lots of demand can be time shifted easily.

Retric 4y ago
> nuclear needs to make that up on the other 16. I am specifically referring to a nuclear power plant’s income here. If they averaged 10c per kWh over a year that’s X$/year. To make that same X$/year when wholesale prices are 2c/kWh for 8 hours a day they would need to be average 14c/kWh for 16 hours to average 10c/kWh over a full day. Aka (8 * 2c + 16 * 14c)/24 = 10c The above is of course a simplification of a complex market, but illustrates a real effect related to the “duck curve.”
- tomatocracy 4y ago
  Of course, this is why markets where everyone is forced to sell into a single pool don't work. If you let them sign a PPA for baseload electricity with a consumer who values that certainty (and there are many) for the whole year at 10c/kWh then there is no issue.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Yes and no, PPA don’t change the underlying economics. In the above model, of batteries added 20c/kWh then Nuclear averages cheaper over a full day. If batteries added 10c/kWh then Solar ends up cheaper over a full day. The underlying issue is nobody wants a PPA that lasts for the full 40+ year lifespan of a new nuclear reactor and battery prices are still falling. Enough subsides can make anything viable, but western governments have largely lost interest in doing so.

by pydry 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

> nuclear needs to make that up on the other 16. I am specifically referring to a nuclear power plant’s income here. If they averaged 10c per kWh over a year that’s X$/year. To make that same X$/year when wholesale prices are 2c/kWh for 8 hours a day they would need to be average 14c/kWh for 16 hours to average 10c/kWh over a full day. Aka (8 * 2c + 16 * 14c)/24 = 10c The above is of course a simplification of a complex market, but illustrates a real effect related to the “duck curve.”

tomatocracy 4y ago
Of course, this is why markets where everyone is forced to sell into a single pool don't work. If you let them sign a PPA for baseload electricity with a consumer who values that certainty (and there are many) for the whole year at 10c/kWh then there is no issue.
- Retric 4y ago
  Yes and no, PPA don’t change the underlying economics. In the above model, of batteries added 20c/kWh then Nuclear averages cheaper over a full day. If batteries added 10c/kWh then Solar ends up cheaper over a full day. The underlying issue is nobody wants a PPA that lasts for the full 40+ year lifespan of a new nuclear reactor and battery prices are still falling. Enough subsides can make anything viable, but western governments have largely lost interest in doing so.