3 ms·
And its more expensive than estimates for storage+renewables over its intended lifetime. With nuclear you pay extra to have to change the system less...
by Certhas 3y ago
And its more expensive than estimates for storage+renewables over its intended lifetime. With nuclear you pay extra to have to change the system less...
- belorn 3y agoIt is those situation where the government should just get people to bid on supplying a steady amount of non-fossil fuel energy for a given period in the future, and whoever bids lowest wins. If there are companies willing to sign a cheaper contract that provide equal stability of a nuclear power by using a combination of fossil free storage and renewables, they should then do that. The requirements are fairly simple. Provide energy when people want it with the capacity that people require, and supply it as cheap as possible with as little subsidizes as needed. No fossil fuels allowed.
- Certhas 3y agoAgreed. That's the idea behind capacity markets, but the idea to pay people for capacity rather than for energy provided seems to be politically difficult, and (some) economists argue it's not needed.
- Certhas 3y agoP.s.: Here is the European Commission on the use of capacity renumeration: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/capacity-mechanisms_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/cap...