The article looks at the cost of renewables with fossil backup versus nuclear. It does not address the future costs related to emission targets, storage requirements and an alternative backup power when fossil is phased out.
The validity of the conclusion depends on cheap natural gas always being available and usable.
Renewables can never reach zero emission without a means of cheap storage, Systems with a high content of wind power require massive quantities of storage to overcome periods of "wind drought", whereas nuclear based grids can operate with minimal energy storage in the form of pumped hydro, thermal, hydrogen or a combination of all three with batteries for short term balancing.
When you consider all of the system requirements, including storage and regeneration, for a zero emission nuclear grid versus a renewables based grid, the nuclear proves to be about one third of the cost, and provides a more reliable system.
Nuclear should not be regarded as a baseload for use with renewables. In such a system the nuclear would have to be sized to provide 100% of peak load since there are always times when neither wind nor solar are producing. In such a system, the wind and solar serve no useful purpose. For the least expensive and most reliable zero emission system, it is the wind and solar that need to be eliminated, not the nuclear
Good article - however it is rather long so would benefit from a good abstract summarizing the findings. This would enable more people to read it and so better understand the issues. Keep up the good work.
Except all wind turbine components as well as solar components are made in China. The gas & coal comes from Russia. What is the cost of dependence to foreign authoritarian regimes ?
Question: Can't the same be said about natural gas? It's considered baseload and at this point is prohibitively expensive. Makes me think that lower natural gas generation will enable more renewable capacity to come online more often. No?
First, on the sentence "It typically varies from 1 to 1.5 between night and day, 1 to 2 within a week, and 1 to 3% over the year.", I assume the % is a typo
Second, when comparing WACCs, have you been careful as to compare the same WACCs? I'm guessing 1% is real, pre-tax; which I doubt the 7% number is.
According to this carbon countdown clock (https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm), at the current rate, the most CO2 we can emit to stay below 1.5ºC rise is 400 Gt, starting from 2020, and that carbon budget will be used up by about July/August 2029.
We are at 302 Gts left as I write.
Within that time frame, new nuclear will do little or nothing. It takes too long to build as well as being more expensive than the alternatives and not meshing well with renewables.
Excellent article, as always, which would deserve to be circulated broadly to our French politicians. Note that 92.5 GBP/MWh paid for Inkley Point nuclear is in 2012 price, so more than 120 GBP/MWh in today's price, close to 150 EUR/MWh...
Really enjoyed finding your new blog Jerome - I still remember reading your Cost of Wind, Value of Wind article on the Oil Drum all those years ago. I have been doing some of my own analyses and simualations which you might find interesting, sounds like you're doing a similar sort of thing. I can't claim to have anything like your industry knowledge but I can do graphs and simulations... :) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulating-uk-grids-transition-net-zero-part-1-phil-chapman/
The article looks at the cost of renewables with fossil backup versus nuclear. It does not address the future costs related to emission targets, storage requirements and an alternative backup power when fossil is phased out.
The validity of the conclusion depends on cheap natural gas always being available and usable.
Renewables can never reach zero emission without a means of cheap storage, Systems with a high content of wind power require massive quantities of storage to overcome periods of "wind drought", whereas nuclear based grids can operate with minimal energy storage in the form of pumped hydro, thermal, hydrogen or a combination of all three with batteries for short term balancing.
When you consider all of the system requirements, including storage and regeneration, for a zero emission nuclear grid versus a renewables based grid, the nuclear proves to be about one third of the cost, and provides a more reliable system.
Nuclear should not be regarded as a baseload for use with renewables. In such a system the nuclear would have to be sized to provide 100% of peak load since there are always times when neither wind nor solar are producing. In such a system, the wind and solar serve no useful purpose. For the least expensive and most reliable zero emission system, it is the wind and solar that need to be eliminated, not the nuclear
https://johnd12343.substack.com/p/the-road-to-zero-emissions-must-embrace
Good article - however it is rather long so would benefit from a good abstract summarizing the findings. This would enable more people to read it and so better understand the issues. Keep up the good work.
Except all wind turbine components as well as solar components are made in China. The gas & coal comes from Russia. What is the cost of dependence to foreign authoritarian regimes ?
Question: Can't the same be said about natural gas? It's considered baseload and at this point is prohibitively expensive. Makes me think that lower natural gas generation will enable more renewable capacity to come online more often. No?
Nice article!
I had two remarks:
First, on the sentence "It typically varies from 1 to 1.5 between night and day, 1 to 2 within a week, and 1 to 3% over the year.", I assume the % is a typo
Second, when comparing WACCs, have you been careful as to compare the same WACCs? I'm guessing 1% is real, pre-tax; which I doubt the 7% number is.
According to this carbon countdown clock (https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock.htm), at the current rate, the most CO2 we can emit to stay below 1.5ºC rise is 400 Gt, starting from 2020, and that carbon budget will be used up by about July/August 2029.
We are at 302 Gts left as I write.
Within that time frame, new nuclear will do little or nothing. It takes too long to build as well as being more expensive than the alternatives and not meshing well with renewables.
Excellent article, as always, which would deserve to be circulated broadly to our French politicians. Note that 92.5 GBP/MWh paid for Inkley Point nuclear is in 2012 price, so more than 120 GBP/MWh in today's price, close to 150 EUR/MWh...
Much appreciate your articles, perspective and insight. Always an interesting read!
Really enjoyed finding your new blog Jerome - I still remember reading your Cost of Wind, Value of Wind article on the Oil Drum all those years ago. I have been doing some of my own analyses and simualations which you might find interesting, sounds like you're doing a similar sort of thing. I can't claim to have anything like your industry knowledge but I can do graphs and simulations... :) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simulating-uk-grids-transition-net-zero-part-1-phil-chapman/