5 ms·

Looking at this chart, how has nuclear reached its target? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electr

by j-pb 2y ago

Looking at this chart, how has nuclear reached its target? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... Nuclear has less capacity than solar. Nuclear has less capacity than on-shore wind. Nuclear is currently 3x as expensive as on-shore wind. Nuclear is currently 2x as expensive as solar. France spend the last 70 years building low-CO2 energy reactors. Nobody is disputing that this is a great thing™, but that doesn't mean that it is the right technology for other nations to go with now, who can't go back in time 70 years.

kgabis 2y ago
Installed capacity is a silly metric when you want to compare intermittent energy sources like solar and wind with baseload ones like nuclear.
- j-pb 2y ago
  The price for solar/wind + energy storage is still cheaper than nuclear tho.
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    This doesn't take into account the cost associated with storing the energy, or having alternate energy source to fill in the gaps.
    - j-pb 2y ago
      You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.
      - Kuinox 2y ago
        The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.
        j-pb 2y ago
        Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$ - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$ - Cost for solar 24–96$ - Cost for wind 24–75$ - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$ - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$ - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$ So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april... 2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... 3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage/recommendations-energy-storage_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...
        kgabis 2y ago
        > The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
        j-pb 2y ago
        He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
  - kgabis 2y ago
    You can't pay for something that doesn't exist. You just can't store enough energy to turn renewables into a baseload energy source because it's orders of magnitude more than existing storage solutions.
Kuinox 2y ago
This is the installed capacity. The capacity factor in winter for solar is below 10%. Nuclear is typically at more than 90% in winter. The target we are speaking is CO2 emitted, it already reached the "target" in france, with less than 60gCO2/kwh to provide electricity the whole year, to the whole grid. > but that doesn't mean that it is the right technology for other nations to go with now you propose something that is not feasible with the current technology. Reports indicate countries should build a lots of clean energy source, as fast as possible, including nuclear, solar, wind, to use these clean energy source and replace fossil energy, to limit global warming Right now, France doesn't do that fast enough (not enough investment in nuclear, and renewable), and Germany is headed to the opposite direction (need of fossil fuel to produce in renewable down-time).
- j-pb 2y ago
  This is the energy generated. Every euro spend on nuclear is a euro not spend on something that's giving you 2-3x as much energy generated. Rewewables have been called "infeasible" at 5%, at 25% at 50%, now we're at 60%. I'm prette sure you'll yell "infeasible" even if we're running at 100%...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by j-pb 2y ago

kgabis 2y ago

Installed capacity is a silly metric when you want to compare intermittent energy sources like solar and wind with baseload ones like nuclear.

j-pb 2y ago
The price for solar/wind + energy storage is still cheaper than nuclear tho.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  This doesn't take into account the cost associated with storing the energy, or having alternate energy source to fill in the gaps.
  - j-pb 2y ago
    You say that the cost of renevables and energy storage combined don't include the cost associated with storing the energy? Wild take.
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      The graph you linked doesn't take it into account.
      - j-pb 2y ago
        Yeah but you can do the calculations yourself. I'm gonna use the most expensive storage technology I know (lithium-ion) and forego cheaper alternatives like pumped hydro just to make a point. I'm gonna use data from lazard, because it looks like the most recent study[1]. - Cost of Lithium-Ion Battery Packs 139$/kWh [2] - 139000$/MWh - We want the levelized cost of electricity, so let's assume, again to make a point, that we have to throw the battery out after 500 cycles instead of it only operating at 80% charge. That's 139000$ / 500 = 278$ - The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid.[3] That's 278$ * 0.4 = 112$ - Cost for solar 24–96$ - Cost for wind 24–75$ - Cost for solar + storage 136$ - 208$ - Cost for wind + storage 136$ - 187$ - Cost for new nuclear: 141–221$ So you can combine renewables with the most expensive/deluxe storage technology available today and it's still cheaper than nuclear. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april... 2: https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-hit-record-low-of-139-kwh/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-... 3: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/energy-storage/recommendations-energy-storage_en https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/research-and-technology/e...
        kgabis 2y ago
        > The EU estimates that in a 80% renewable grid you need approx 30% storage capacity. So let's assume we need 40% storage capacity for a 100% grid. Fortunately there's no such thing as diminishing returns and we can just make assumptions like this without any backing./s
        j-pb 2y ago
        He said without providing any backing. But sure let's take a paper that estimated costs for the 100% renewable case: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#erlac4dc8f1 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#... They estimate €80 per MWh for an entirely renewable System. So do you want to provide a study that has some contradicting numbers, or do you just want to admit that no amount of evidence is going to change your mind and move on?
- kgabis 2y ago
  You can't pay for something that doesn't exist. You just can't store enough energy to turn renewables into a baseload energy source because it's orders of magnitude more than existing storage solutions.

Kuinox 2y ago

This is the installed capacity. The capacity factor in winter for solar is below 10%. Nuclear is typically at more than 90% in winter. The target we are speaking is CO2 emitted, it already reached the "target" in france, with less than 60gCO2/kwh to provide electricity the whole year, to the whole grid. > but that doesn't mean that it is the right technology for other nations to go with now you propose something that is not feasible with the current technology. Reports indicate countries should build a lots of clean energy source, as fast as possible, including nuclear, solar, wind, to use these clean energy source and replace fossil energy, to limit global warming Right now, France doesn't do that fast enough (not enough investment in nuclear, and renewable), and Germany is headed to the opposite direction (need of fossil fuel to produce in renewable down-time).

j-pb 2y ago
This is the energy generated. Every euro spend on nuclear is a euro not spend on something that's giving you 2-3x as much energy generated. Rewewables have been called "infeasible" at 5%, at 25% at 50%, now we're at 60%. I'm prette sure you'll yell "infeasible" even if we're running at 100%...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]