4 ms·

Assume a capacity factor of 50% then to handle peak loads? Now the nuclear costs $240-440/MWh. That is ridiculous costs, worse than Europe during the last winte

Assume a capacity factor of 50% then to handle peak loads? Now the nuclear costs $240-440/MWh. That is ridiculous costs, worse than Europe during the last winters Russian war induced gas crisis. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

pyrale 3y ago
It's hard to give numbers for 100% nuclear since no one does that, but yes, France has load factors between 60 and 80% depending on the reactor type. https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucleaire-a-la-securite-energetique-en-augmentant-la-production-delectricite-en-2021 https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucl... The report you quote already cites load factor around 90% for new builds, a 50% load factor wouldn't double the costs. That being said, 90% load factor for a grid with a high share of nuclear is probably extremely optimistic. The reason such high capacity factors can be reached in countries that have a low nuclear share is that nuclear has an extremely low marginal cost, and is always picked over plants that require fuel.
- Certhas 3y ago
  Once you electrify your heat demand seasonal variability will massively increase, driving down load factors dramatically. Today electricity accounts for 20% of energy use, European estimates see that going up to 50% by 2050. A large chunk of that increase is heating. Obviously other countries and climates will not see the same patterns here.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  True, the fixed costs are $20-35/MWh. Deduct that from the figure before doubling. Not that it matters. Running a pure nuclear grid will never get 90% capacity factor. That relies on only taking the base load and offloading the actual hard part to other generators. Exactly what nuclear proponents like to say will be impossible for renewables.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    > That relies on only taking the base load and offloading the actual hard part to other generators. Exactly what nuclear proponents like to say will be impossible for renewables. It's certainly not impossible, since that's what we do currently. The reason we would like to stop doing it in the future is co2 emissions, not a feasibility barrier. Now my point was that we don't have experience of massive storage. And in the absence of storage, nuclear costs go up, while renewables output goes down. One is painful but manageable, we don't have a plan to handle the other. Personally, I wish we spent a bit less subsidies on renewable production, and a bit more on grid-sized storage, so we can have an answer on costs. Without this, discussions on storage-enabled grids are conjectures at best.

pyrale 3y ago

It's hard to give numbers for 100% nuclear since no one does that, but yes, France has load factors between 60 and 80% depending on the reactor type. https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucleaire-a-la-securite-energetique-en-augmentant-la-production-delectricite-en-2021 https://www.iaea.org/fr/newscenter/news/contribution-du-nucl... The report you quote already cites load factor around 90% for new builds, a 50% load factor wouldn't double the costs. That being said, 90% load factor for a grid with a high share of nuclear is probably extremely optimistic. The reason such high capacity factors can be reached in countries that have a low nuclear share is that nuclear has an extremely low marginal cost, and is always picked over plants that require fuel.

Certhas 3y ago
Once you electrify your heat demand seasonal variability will massively increase, driving down load factors dramatically. Today electricity accounts for 20% of energy use, European estimates see that going up to 50% by 2050. A large chunk of that increase is heating. Obviously other countries and climates will not see the same patterns here.
Gwypaas 3y ago
True, the fixed costs are $20-35/MWh. Deduct that from the figure before doubling. Not that it matters. Running a pure nuclear grid will never get 90% capacity factor. That relies on only taking the base load and offloading the actual hard part to other generators. Exactly what nuclear proponents like to say will be impossible for renewables.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > That relies on only taking the base load and offloading the actual hard part to other generators. Exactly what nuclear proponents like to say will be impossible for renewables. It's certainly not impossible, since that's what we do currently. The reason we would like to stop doing it in the future is co2 emissions, not a feasibility barrier. Now my point was that we don't have experience of massive storage. And in the absence of storage, nuclear costs go up, while renewables output goes down. One is painful but manageable, we don't have a plan to handle the other. Personally, I wish we spent a bit less subsidies on renewable production, and a bit more on grid-sized storage, so we can have an answer on costs. Without this, discussions on storage-enabled grids are conjectures at best.