Earlier quoted context omitted.
The marginal cost of batteries grows more than linearly. When batteries are covering 0% of the need, the marginally added battery cycles many times, so the cost is spread over many kwh produced. When you add batteries to go from 99.98 to 99.99, the batteries cycle only for that 0.01, so the same cost to build them is spread over a much fewer kwh, making each kwh produced a lot more expensive. Seasonal storage is madn…
Per Ember Energy reports, a cost optimal new build grid is between 90% - 97% solar/wind/battery, and between 3% to 10% gas peaker depending on how much sun/wind your locale gets. But you can't replace the gas peaker with 3% or 10% nuclear because in essence that gas peaker is supplying 100% of the power 3% to 10% of the time. So you'd have to build nuclear plants that can supply 100% of the power. But once you have t…
There is not a single analysis out there that tackles the twin problems of meeting growing electricity demand with a power source that depends on an uncertain and changing climate.
You say "occasional" dunkelflaute, but we have no idea whether occasional is once a season or once a decade.
This is exactly where nuclear shines, because although it is expensive, it insulates a country against the vagaries of external forces. Whether or not that guarantee is worth the price tag is the question a lot of governments are grappling with and they mostly seem to agree that the value is indeed worth the cost.