5 ms·

It is does not. LCOE is a metric from the Lazard institute has been debunked many time alreayd because it does not take into consideration the cost of the capac

by adev_ 3y ago

It is does not. LCOE is a metric from the Lazard institute has been debunked many time alreayd because it does not take into consideration the cost of the capacity guarantee of the grid. If you had that, Nuclear become competitive. If you had that and tax properly coal and Gas plant proportionally to the emission they really do. Nuclear become even incredibly cheap, specially if we consider its hydrogen co-generation capabilities.

hef19898 3y ago
Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). Nuclear is, by any metric you want, on the actual happening markets too expensivebto build new capacity. No amount of "if-only-and-then-if"s changes that.
- adev_ 3y ago
  > Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). It is not true anymore [1] [1]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu-electricity-market-reform-what-did-paris-and-berlin-obtain/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu...
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I didn't find any details on the new pricing structure so in the article...
    - adev_ 3y ago
      Just dig up a bit the way the CfDs are working ....
      - hef19898 3y ago
        So, how are they working? Contract for Difference of Cumputational Fluid Dynamics, bothbof which are related to electricity generation?
natmaka 3y ago
LCOE (cost of produced electricity: the difference between nuclear and renewables is huge, and growing. Therefore it offers financial resources to build what is needed for a renewables-based system to provide most of the time: continental grid interconnections (many already done, most already planed because they are useful even without renewables), green hydrogen backup, V2G and smartgrid (also planed whatever the type of production units)...) > hydrogen co-generation Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewable-generated electricity, and on the hydrogen chain all other costs are the same whatever the type of electricity-production units. Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.
- adev_ 3y ago
  > Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input. Which is entirely ok. There is one thing people mis-understand often about Nuclear power: The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted). So using co-generation as a load regulation is only an economical benefit from a Nuclear perspective. > may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input. The problem is exactly the same than for electrolysis done associated with intermittent renewable. It is quite laughable to see the "full renewable church" bringing Hydrogen as the solution to every grid capacity problem and at the same time bringing that as an argument against Nuclear.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Cost of nuclear fuel close to zero? Where I can buy that magic fuel? The little much money I have should do the trick!
audunw 3y ago
> If you had that, Nuclear become competitive. Source? There are several studies looking at what it’d take to go for 100% renewable energy that ends up with a lower total cost of energy than what we have today. Including costs for balancing the grid. This assumes no technological improvements. Considering the cost of nuclear today, I don’t see how nuclear could ever contributing to lowering the total costs. Yes, with technological improvements, and scaling up manufacturing, I’m sure nuclear could become much cheaper. But so could renewables and energy storage solutions. And energy storage solutions have network effects with decarbonisation of transportation that nuclear power doesn’t get to benefit from. I don’t see a way for nuclear to catch up considering how solar and battery technologies are rapidly becoming essential to every aspect of society. The amount of R&D going into these fields is absolutely staggering. And nuclear power has this sword of Damocles hanging over it: if advanced geothermal gains significant traction, nuclear is doomed. Both nuclear and geothermal is essentially ways of getting thermal energy with near zero operating costs. But geothermal is much easier in terms of regulation and have zero concerns regarding waste management. What do you think will happen when the entire oil and gas industry is made redundant? An industry whose main competency is drilling deep. Just focus on drilling deeper, cheaper, and you get infinite free and green energy forever.

by adev_ 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). Nuclear is, by any metric you want, on the actual happening markets too expensivebto build new capacity. No amount of "if-only-and-then-if"s changes that.

adev_ 3y ago
> Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe). It is not true anymore [1] [1]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu-electricity-market-reform-what-did-paris-and-berlin-obtain/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu...
- hef19898 3y ago
  I didn't find any details on the new pricing structure so in the article...
  - adev_ 3y ago
    Just dig up a bit the way the CfDs are working ....
    - hef19898 3y ago
      So, how are they working? Contract for Difference of Cumputational Fluid Dynamics, bothbof which are related to electricity generation?

natmaka 3y ago

LCOE (cost of produced electricity: the difference between nuclear and renewables is huge, and growing. Therefore it offers financial resources to build what is needed for a renewables-based system to provide most of the time: continental grid interconnections (many already done, most already planed because they are useful even without renewables), green hydrogen backup, V2G and smartgrid (also planed whatever the type of production units)...) > hydrogen co-generation Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewable-generated electricity, and on the hydrogen chain all other costs are the same whatever the type of electricity-production units. Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.

adev_ 3y ago
> Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input. Which is entirely ok. There is one thing people mis-understand often about Nuclear power: The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted). So using co-generation as a load regulation is only an economical benefit from a Nuclear perspective. > may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input. The problem is exactly the same than for electrolysis done associated with intermittent renewable. It is quite laughable to see the "full renewable church" bringing Hydrogen as the solution to every grid capacity problem and at the same time bringing that as an argument against Nuclear.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Cost of nuclear fuel close to zero? Where I can buy that magic fuel? The little much money I have should do the trick!

audunw 3y ago

> If you had that, Nuclear become competitive. Source? There are several studies looking at what it’d take to go for 100% renewable energy that ends up with a lower total cost of energy than what we have today. Including costs for balancing the grid. This assumes no technological improvements. Considering the cost of nuclear today, I don’t see how nuclear could ever contributing to lowering the total costs. Yes, with technological improvements, and scaling up manufacturing, I’m sure nuclear could become much cheaper. But so could renewables and energy storage solutions. And energy storage solutions have network effects with decarbonisation of transportation that nuclear power doesn’t get to benefit from. I don’t see a way for nuclear to catch up considering how solar and battery technologies are rapidly becoming essential to every aspect of society. The amount of R&D going into these fields is absolutely staggering. And nuclear power has this sword of Damocles hanging over it: if advanced geothermal gains significant traction, nuclear is doomed. Both nuclear and geothermal is essentially ways of getting thermal energy with near zero operating costs. But geothermal is much easier in terms of regulation and have zero concerns regarding waste management. What do you think will happen when the entire oil and gas industry is made redundant? An industry whose main competency is drilling deep. Just focus on drilling deeper, cheaper, and you get infinite free and green energy forever.