>Unlike, say, renewables, that have overbuilding as a requirement I guess
Right, except at 5x the cost.
Nuclear power, and indeed, load following would make a lot more sense if grid scale storage were prohibitively expensive or impossible.
Right, except at 5x the cost.
Nuclear power, and indeed, load following would make a lot more sense if grid scale storage were prohibitively expensive or impossible.
Source?
> if grid scale storage were prohibitively expensive or impossible.
It's currently both [1].
BTW. Case in point: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
---
[1] Edit: This is a nice quick overview from a year ago https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/energy-storage-ana...
"Cheapest" option is pumped hydro storage. To cover Europe's need you only need to build 70 1.5 GW hydroelectric stations at a cost of $92 billion (in reality much higher) while greatly damaging ecology in large areas.
The most expensive option is Li-ion batteries, clocking in at a measely 1.1 trillion dollars.
Cheap and feasible.
Odd that somebody who is trying to school me on the realities of renewable energy is unaware of this, but here you go:
https://energycentral.com/sites/default/files/styles/og_meta...
>>if grid scale storage were prohibitively expensive or impossible. >It's currently both
For something that is prohibitively expensive and impossible we sure are seeing a lot of it rolled out.
>"Cheapest" option is pumped hydro storage. To cover Europe's need you only need to build 70 1.5 GW hydroelectric stations at a cost of $92 billion
Meanwhile, Hinkley point C is projected to cost $28 billion and for that we will get just 3.2GW.
Europe used 2785 TWh last year. Even if you assumed that storage is free, that still requires a minimum of 317GW, which would require about 100 Hinkley Point Cs, which would cost $2.7 trillion to build.
$100 billion would be a bargain.
Odd that someone who keeps reeating falsifiable untruths about nuclear couldn't be bothered to provide their sources even when repeatedly asked
> https://energycentral.com/sites/default/files/styles/og_meta...
This is a graph with no context and no explanation. And of course it doesn't include things like the need to overbuild and projected costs of storage.
> Meanwhile, Hinkley point C
Meanwhile if you selectively look at a single nuclear plant built in conditions which the FUD you spread around has been the norm for the past three decades, sure.
> $100 billion would be a bargain.
Of course you continue to ignore everything from what I write but what makes your FUD look plausible and good. Of course it won't be 100 billion because there's literally no way you could build that many PHS (and not at that cost). You'd know that if you actually read the links I provided, and not cherry-picked whatever you want from my words.
I have no interest to continue talking to someone who argues in bad faith.
Adieu.