3 ms·

> For renewables it is already baked into the price because the risks are near zero. Remind me how much each eagle is worth? How about power cuts caused by win

> For renewables it is already baked into the price because the risks are near zero. Remind me how much each eagle is worth? How about power cuts caused by wind farms tripping incorrectly? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49309691 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49309691 How about disruption caused by failure to provide power in low wind conditions, or is that just a societal risk rather than investor risk?

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
So now eagles worth hundreds of billions. Then more whataboutism. Typical. How about the disruption caused by half the French nuclear fleet being offline at the height of the energy crisis? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > So now eagles worth hundreds of billions. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091250692/esi-energy-bald-eagles https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091250692/esi-energy-bald-ea...; around 30k USD per eagle. That's the cost of doing business, I guess. > A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid Per paper you've linked to :- For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved They state that for nuclear to be cost competitive with (per table 2) onshore wind (1.03 MEUR/MW, 0.37 capacity factor), offshore wind (1.90 MEUR/MW, 0.51 capacity factor) and solar (0.6 MEUR/MW, 0.14 capacity factor) it has to have a price between offshore and onshore wind. One also has to wonder why the high nuclear scenario has 9GW of intermittent energy sources in the mix. Supplementary material chart S1 reveals that the nuclear power is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system. "Transport costs", "remaining investments" and "Operations and maintenance" are over 20B of the 25B EUR cost per year. Figure 6 of the paper needs to be viewed with these totals in mind. Supplementary material chart S3 shows they model nuclear's availability factor by smoothing outages across the year, only ever producing 6,686MW. EDIT :- actually it goes up to 6,823MW for part of the year, averaging out to 6,743MW. Overall the paper is rather poor. EDIT :- Looking at the S3 data again, it appears that heating and unflexible demand add up to at most 9,770MW, so only another 2 nuclear power stations would cover that peak.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? It is not like those will disappear? Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" when comparing to what we already need to do. You know there are similar costs today in the transportation system. Add up what we pay for fossil fueled ICEs and "it's not too bad!!!". This is quite typical, a complete inability to accept reality calling anything not mindlessly promoting your precious nuclear power "poor".
    - chickenbig 2y ago
      > Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? So Denmark can not change its energy system from intermittents to nuclear because that's impossible, but it can change from fossil fuels to intermittents because it must be done? Given a 20 year lifetime for intermittents it should be possible to manage their phase-out. > Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" I did point out that the nuclear "is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system"; it is unclear how the authors have justified 80% of the system cost and how that varies with intermittency of energy supply and demand (e.g. reduced transmission cost, scope in the summer to use a excess electricity). > a complete inability to accept reality It is unfortunate that the model behind this is not available for peer study; https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft is not a live link and the archive.org version of this does not hold a copy of the scenario files. The results depend critically on the model used (and software used to solve it) so in the absence of further information all I can do is look at the results in the paper and point out obvious issues. I've just spotted the cost modelling of the intermittents; rather than using IAEA LCOE data (or state LCOE directly), table 2 states costs in terms of capital, O&M as a percentage of investment and lifetime. Crunching their numbers (with a 3% interest rate) I come to offshore wind LCOE being 29.75 EUR/MWh, onshore wind 24.41 EUR/MWh and solar 33.44 EUR/MWh. This seems on the low side. Do you believe that this paper is a good example of energy modelling?

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

So now eagles worth hundreds of billions. Then more whataboutism. Typical. How about the disruption caused by half the French nuclear fleet being offline at the height of the energy crisis? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr... A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid, due to both options requiring flexibility to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...

chickenbig 2y ago
> So now eagles worth hundreds of billions. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091250692/esi-energy-bald-eagles https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091250692/esi-energy-bald-ea...; around 30k USD per eagle. That's the cost of doing business, I guess. > A recent study found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables when looking into total system costs for a fully decarbonized grid Per paper you've linked to :- For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved They state that for nuclear to be cost competitive with (per table 2) onshore wind (1.03 MEUR/MW, 0.37 capacity factor), offshore wind (1.90 MEUR/MW, 0.51 capacity factor) and solar (0.6 MEUR/MW, 0.14 capacity factor) it has to have a price between offshore and onshore wind. One also has to wonder why the high nuclear scenario has 9GW of intermittent energy sources in the mix. Supplementary material chart S1 reveals that the nuclear power is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system. "Transport costs", "remaining investments" and "Operations and maintenance" are over 20B of the 25B EUR cost per year. Figure 6 of the paper needs to be viewed with these totals in mind. Supplementary material chart S3 shows they model nuclear's availability factor by smoothing outages across the year, only ever producing 6,686MW. EDIT :- actually it goes up to 6,823MW for part of the year, averaging out to 6,743MW. Overall the paper is rather poor. EDIT :- Looking at the S3 data again, it appears that heating and unflexible demand add up to at most 9,770MW, so only another 2 nuclear power stations would cover that peak.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? It is not like those will disappear? Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" when comparing to what we already need to do. You know there are similar costs today in the transportation system. Add up what we pay for fossil fueled ICEs and "it's not too bad!!!". This is quite typical, a complete inability to accept reality calling anything not mindlessly promoting your precious nuclear power "poor".
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    > Because Denmark already have intermittent sources covering over half their demand? So Denmark can not change its energy system from intermittents to nuclear because that's impossible, but it can change from fossil fuels to intermittents because it must be done? Given a 20 year lifetime for intermittents it should be possible to manage their phase-out. > Then you try to justify enormous nuclear costs because "it is not too bad" I did point out that the nuclear "is a small part of the overall cost of the energy system"; it is unclear how the authors have justified 80% of the system cost and how that varies with intermittency of energy supply and demand (e.g. reduced transmission cost, scope in the summer to use a excess electricity). > a complete inability to accept reality It is unfortunate that the model behind this is not available for peer study; https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft https://www.energyplan.eu/atomkraft is not a live link and the archive.org version of this does not hold a copy of the scenario files. The results depend critically on the model used (and software used to solve it) so in the absence of further information all I can do is look at the results in the paper and point out obvious issues. I've just spotted the cost modelling of the intermittents; rather than using IAEA LCOE data (or state LCOE directly), table 2 states costs in terms of capital, O&M as a percentage of investment and lifetime. Crunching their numbers (with a 3% interest rate) I come to offshore wind LCOE being 29.75 EUR/MWh, onshore wind 24.41 EUR/MWh and solar 33.44 EUR/MWh. This seems on the low side. Do you believe that this paper is a good example of energy modelling?