4 ms·
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
by 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.