Gwypaas

22 ms·

211.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
£92.50/MWh in 2012 prices is £122/MWh today. Convert to USD.
212.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
The CFD scheme UK has employed works just as well when introducing regions.
213.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
We are moving towards an interconnected world. One connection and it is a weak spot. A multitude and you take it in stride. NorthStream is the perfect example of this. Did Europe collapse? No. Would we have liked to not have to deal with it
214.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
It is starting to come. People already schedule their car charging when it is cheap. But it does not get built over night.
215.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Like an addon of $10-20/MWh. That does not pay for a nuclear plant.
216.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
UK need to divide the country into cost regions based on the bottlenecks and it will work like international power connections. The political problem is making Scotland its own separate region. Have a look at the regions in for example Swed
217.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
A haphazard continent-wide transition from Russian gas, and all we get is nuclear prices for power? So to get it straight, you are proposing that we always should have an energy crisis in Europe?
218.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Which includes the transmission grid. Nuclear costs that, and then you have to build a grid.
219.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Pure cost. Paying Hinkley Point C $150/MWh for 35 years is just bonkers waste of money. Flamanville 3 is a similarly amazing project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
220.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
It is all about correlation between sources. The wind power where it connects to is more weakly correlated to UK's existing wind compared to for example Danish.
221.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
And learned a very expensive lesson in negative learning by doing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
222.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Energy grids tend to converge to LCOE of the producers. Just look at the average prices before the current crisis haphazardly replacing Russian gas with alternatives. We are also talking about the 70-90% case here, for that case no storage
223.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
You are stuck in the mindset of a blank slate with Energiewende as one of the options ahead of you. That decision is done, you can not revert it. The cost is paid. We are now in 2023. This is how the cost for solar PV and wind have transfor
224.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Which is amazing considering that Germany has 2.8x the GDP per capita of Poland. As I said, I do not agree with phasing out nuclear before renewables. Short of that transforming the electricity sector of Germany from all fossil and some nuc
225.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
The French example is amazing. A bunch of negative learning by doing and then the total boondoggle of Flamanville 3. Lets emulate. Have a look at this crudely drawn graph to see the nuclear French cost over time with Flamanville 3 added as
226.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
The risk is the soup of strangely radioactive materials leaking into the water table. Fission is not a clean chemical reaction, this is the spread of the atomic masses for different kinds of fission processes. https://en.wikipedi
227.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
We are. Marginal cost + paying for CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi... You are missing the time factor. Supplying 90% means that a vast majority of time they fulfill 100% and the expens
228.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
> Every dollar spent on nuclear, or every dollar spent on gratuitous nuclear regulation? Renewables kill many more people and render far more land uninhabitable per kWh generated; if we normalized our safety requirements then we'd t
229.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Just naïvely I would think that you used multi stage heat-pumps with different heat transfer fluids? Unless the process heat is thousands of degrees, but then we are already using inefficient methods like arc furnaces.
230.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
We had economies of scale in the 50s when it was the cheapest? Or was it because we had this attitude towards nuclear engineering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident
231.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Take the 20% cost reduction the last two generations lead to. That would change Flamanville 3 from exorbitantly expensive to exorbitantly expensive. The French nuclear program as a whole has had a huge negative learning curve. The more they
232.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
They had reduced costs within each generation but the costs between generations increased wildly. They never saw any kinds of economics of scale. Have a look at Figure 25 here and add Flamanville 3 waaaay beyond the end of the scale at $12
233.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. The next problem nuclear faces is that the CAPEX heavy
234.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Compared to heat pumps and renewables? I see it as very unlikely.
235.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
That video is missing demand response enabling sector coupling. Take green steel using hydrogen as a chemical feedstock. Oversize the electrolyzers and add some storage and the plant is now able to utilize low prices and leave the firm 10%
236.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
Depends on if you have a regulated or open electricity market. You describe a regulated market. On the other hand, Europe by and large operates on a marginal pricing open market with utilities providing the transmission grid and stabilizati
237.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
> Look to Texas for recent lessons on lack of robustness in power generation capability. When they had not winterized the grid and an abnormal amount of gas, coal and nuclear power went offline.
238.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
France had negative learning when attempting to scale up their nuclear industry. Assuming strong learning effects is not given. Nuclear has had 70 years of intense subsidies, and are still far from competing on the open market. > The Fre
239.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
> Not that I mind nuclear.. just not sure where it'll fit in in the future. Just used in some key industrial areas maybe? Nuclear submarines, and that is about it.
240.
by Gwypaas 4y ago
So you propose having nuclear plants in standby? Then I have a bridge to sell you.

More ›