As a result electricity prices dropped about 5 cents per kWh across the board.
However, as noted before, this isn’t really all that interesting. The storage part is the big interesting trillion dollar question.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Olkiluoto-3-EPR-parties...
> "In the event that the supplier consortium companies fail to complete the OL3 EPR project by the end of 2019, they will pay a penalty to TVO for such delay in an amount which will depend on the actual time of completion of the OL3 EPR project and may not exceed EUR400 million,"
Note the article is from 2018
> The latest schedule sees grid connection taking place in December, with the start of regular electricity production in May next year.
Whoops.
Yes, the French had to pay penalties and cost overruns. Even so that only doubles the system costs from 4 cents to 8 cents.
The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible, like the article goes into depths about. Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants.
Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible?
The research in question ignores the fact that we've already passed that level.
>However, a clear deficit and research gap exist, since a detailed description of the industry sector, i.e. separated major industries such as cement, iron and steel, chemicals, aluminum, pulp and paper, etc., is lacking in almost all cases. Therefore, a full defossilization of the non-energy feedstock demand of the industry sector has not been modelled in global 100% RE analysis.
The research in question conveniently says "we don't really know how much industries use, but surely it can't be that bad right ? Anyways, we're not taking it into account"
>The industry sector is described in detail in Pursiheimo et al. [145], though the authors admit that TIMES, the model used, was not capable of applying full power-to-X functionality for the industry sector, thus fossil hydrocarbon inputs to the industry sector were still required by the model. Similarly, Teske et al. [125] and Luderer et al. [146] mention that the chemical industry is still fully based on fossil fuels.
The research in question confirms that the whole industrial sector still requires massive amounts of hydrocarbons.
Overall, all these full renewable grids papers assume one critical thing: a complete change of all of our infrastructure, to add storage, better grid organisation, and overall a complete rework of... everything. While that's a lofty goal, looking at the reality where we can't even phase out simple things makes it quite unbelievable. Everything is possible if you ignore reality.
Well, obviously. Either you overbuild generation capacity or you use dispatchable generation. This is 101 stuff.
Why would you assume I would be overlooking such an obvious thing?
> If storage is "impossible" then a nuclear grid is impossible unless you overbuild it leading to costs multiples higher than Ukrainian war gas crisis costs.
That’s an interesting comparison. How did you come up with the cost comparison?
A nuclear grid isn’t “impossible”. We already have a nuclear grid. What we don’t have is a 100% nuclear grid.
> The problem is that renewables and nuclear are economically incompatible
Yes, because of the rules imposed on the electrical market.
Begin by changing the rules so that they stop disincentivizing running nuclear at 100% all the time. Variable renewable sources should not be must take. Nuclear should be paid first and then, if there are any takers, variable renewables.
Non-variable renewables should be free to eat nuclear’s lunch.
> Renewables easily win this battle as the cost for new built renewables are in the same range as operations and maintenance for paid off nuclear plants.
Only because must take rules and renewables using other generation to compensate for their variability.
> Generally, the research available see no issues building 100% renewable grids, so I do not know why you keep hampering on about it being impossible?
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that 100% renewable grids are impossible. Clearly they are from a theoretical perspective and small grids have been built using 100% renewables.
What I am specifically asking is, how are nation size grids going to be decarbonized, i.e. turned into 100% renewable grids in practice and what timescales are required?
As far as I can tell we either need a boatload of new nuclear, storage and/or megaprojects to build out trans/intercontinental transmission networks.
Storage projections don’t look optimistic.
Trans/intercontinental megaprojects are hard and come with fun spices such as geopolitical risks and massive failure modes.
Nukes are expensive and take a long time to build, but at least we know how to do it.
If we don’t have a plan and know how to build TWh grid storage faster than new nukes, then we should start mass producing nukes right now. At least we’ll have the nukes built eventually.
Obviously nuclear power is economically viable if you use price-fixing to make it economically viable, but that is a huge divergence from the way our economy normally operates.
The EU disagrees with you. A certain percentage of power generation is mandated to come from renewables and nuclear is specifically excluded. IIRC there are no means for power companies to refuse feed-in of renewables.
> They want to because it's the cheapest source of power at the time.
The cheapness is mainly due to the artificial construction of the pricing mechanism.
Variable renewable generation should be priced differently from non-variable fossile free generation.
> Obviously nuclear power is economically viable if you use price-fixing to make it economically viable, but that is a huge divergence from the way our economy normally operates.
It's not a matter of price fixing, but rather of a more rational cost allocation.
Variable renewables are free riders on other generation methods.
Obviously nuclear power is economically viable if you use price-fixing to make it economically viable, but that is a huge divergence from the way our economy normally operates.
Some of the largest costs in grid infrastructure comes from the requirements when nuclear reactors trip.
€11bn for 1.6GW on a European nuke that will run about 70% of the time and statistically will close in around 30 years while costing $30/MWh for O&M is around 16c/kwh
The problem is, someone has to eat the loss. People proposing nuclear power generally have no answer regarding who this "someone" is rather than generic handwaving about "the grid!"
> However, as noted before, this isn’t really all that interesting. The storage part is the big interesting trillion dollar question.
For the Nordics this is already solved with the existing hydropower. Sweden as of this week stores 19 TWh in their reservoirs. This is the reason no storage gets built in the Nordics, it is impossible to compete with scheduling the release of water more in line with renewables rather than daily consumption cycles.
The power companies paid for the nukes and the French paid for botching the job.
> The problem is, someone has to eat the loss. People proposing nuclear power generally have no answer regarding who this "someone" is rather than generic handwaving about "the grid!"
The end user always pays in the end.
Around here people will rather pay for working power rather than freeze to death.
> For the Nordics this is already solved with the existing hydropower.
Um, no. Even if you aren’t from around here these things are easily looked up on Wikipedia.
Norway is the only Nordic country with enough hydro, but even they, like Sweden, are lacking in north-south transmission capacity.
Iceland is too far away.
Denmark has no hydro.
Sweden only has enough for 50%.
Finland only has about 20%.
To further point out the obvious, Finland has to import more than a gigawatt during peak power usage, even when using all generation capacity in the country!
> Sweden as of this week stores 19 TWh in their reservoirs. This is the reason no storage gets built in the Nordics
Um, no. Again.
The reason more hydro isn’t being built is because there is nowhere left to put more off it!
Plus, in Sweden’s case, lack of north-south transmission capacity. Which nobody is building.
So, tell me again, why isn’t more grid storage being built out in the Nordics?