401–410 of 818 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, put in batteries, still an order of magnitude cheaper than a nuclear plant without any risk of doomsday
Not even remotely true. Global battery production is around 300 GWh per year. The US alone uses 12.5 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses ~60TWh. That's 8 years of global battery output to fulfill just one hour of electricity storage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renewables are far cheaper on the margins but not necessarily if you want them to provide all your power needs. Nuclear cost in South Korea, Japan, and India is generally under $3000/kW, according to this peer-reviewed study. See Figure 12: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... Now let's model overall grid costs, here: https://model.energy/ Pick a country and "fetch wind and solar." By defau…
The new Korean plants are designed for a lifespan of 60 years. If governments provide guarantees for the loans, a discount rate of 3% is not unreasonable. Set it like that, and it spits out a price of €32.6/MWh. Now, to make it even more reasonable to emerging economies, assume that through mass production and a relaxation of security requirements to less paranoid levels, the overnight cost can be reduced to €1500, y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, nukes are the slowest , and worst performing. Starting a nuke, we get no power out for a decade or more, and get much less power at the end than building renewables with the same money, which furthermore start displacing carbon immediately.
You are missing the point. With continued investment and improvements to technology nuclear will be much cheaper and faster to deploy. Compare wind/solar prices from the year 2000, and imagine we've spent the last 22 years giving nuclear the same level of attention and promotion as them.
There is no reasonable expectation for substantially better costs for nukes. Anywhere they have to compete with $0 opex renewables, they will run at well under 50% capacity, thus more than doubling their per-kWh cost, making them even less competitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built? No, but there are limits on the amount of raw materials that said factories can use to produce equipment.
Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific. I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.
Uh Lithium?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grid storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost. Which you already knew.
The costs are falling on white papers, not in actual storage projects. Unfortunately, we can't hook a white paper up to the grid :(
Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…
Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…
How are they pushing this and you claim it's "the real agenda", what are they claiming instead? Are you claiming the US got involved with the Ukrainian conflict in order to sell LPG to other countries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You generally use peaker plants or backup fossil fuel or hydro for that use case, at this point in time batteries are used to supply power for a couple of hours at best. You need that backup power anyway for when the nuclear plant is out of commission for some reason.
Regardless of how you're generating your power, you're going to need to overprovision your generation capacity slightly to account for downtime. You only need storage if all of your generation capacity is offline at the same time, which is inevitable with solar power (nighttime), possible with gas (pipeline failure?), but less inherently likely with nuclear. > backup fossil fuel In practice this means fossil fuels be…
The previous poster talked about using fossil (or any other means) to supply the mismatch between the supply and demand at the times where such a mismatch might exist. This is completely unrelated to baseload, it could in fact be larger than baseload. Note that such a mismatch would also exist for nuclear (dependent on overprovisioning). However it would in general be only needed of short periods of time.
Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes. Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of w…
The gasoline prices in US have little to do with price of oil. In 2008 oil was 140 USD while gasoline was much cheaper. The real problem is underutilization of refineries . Some of them reduced output during Covid and was not able to restore production. Some where closed due to environmental regulations.
"U.S. oil refiners’ margins smash records, but few plan to build more plants"
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/05/23/u-s-oil-refiners-marg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transmission costs only capital. Opex for transmission is practically free.
And capital isn't free. With physical goods, there is already a number of existing roads, train tracks, and ports. Capital costs is why Hawaii has traditionally imported oil versus having an undersea power connection to the continental US.
When costs are all capex, the more you use, the less it costs. (And, as with nukes, the less you use, the more it costs.)