New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
-
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
@bascule and the dunderhead running Ontario stopped a bunch of renewable projects when he came to office and is pretty much all in on gas and nuclear. At least his buddies building the new facilities will do well.
-
-
@tael @bascule @soatok they mention in the article that battery storage is factored into the system costs in their comparison, so we are comparing apples to apples there.
What's very nice to see is that the total system costs of solar + wind + BESS are cheaper than either solar or wind alone, because they both produce at different times you need to build less BESS for a more diversified system of the same capacity
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
@bascule@mas.to It's amazing that anyone would think that nuclear fuel wasn't more expensive than putting silicon under the sun. -
System shared this topic
-
@tael @soatok baseload generation is an outmoded concept based on the now obsolete idea that non-dispatchable always-on 24/7 sources are always the cheapest but that's no longer the case.
This has lead us to a world where such sources now pay renewable operators to curtail instead because that's cheaper than curtailing those inflexible, non-dispatchable sources, leading to negative electricity prices.
Real grids need enough capacity at all times, not just to service the absolute minimum.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
@tael @bascule @soatok they mention in the article that battery storage is factored into the system costs in their comparison, so we are comparing apples to apples there.
What's very nice to see is that the total system costs of solar + wind + BESS are cheaper than either solar or wind alone, because they both produce at different times you need to build less BESS for a more diversified system of the same capacity
@midnite @bascule @soatok We are most definitely NOT comparing apples to apples in comparing batteries to baseload, they are manifestly very different things even just in how they interact with the grid on a fundamental level.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/05/30/the_many_problems_with_batteries_1035000.html
Outside of that, batteries are AWFUL for the environment to produce, and you need TONS of them (which is why alternatives like thermal storage and the nutty Lift Weight Storage solution are floated). They are not a very realistic solution to the baseload problem.
Nuclear is judged on what it costs to set up today. Renewables are judged on what they might cost to set up tomorrow in a theoretical integrated energy grid no one has ever created. I fail to see how this is not a double standard.
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
@bascule hum, Danemark specific, also, couldn't find info if it includes the capacity factor or not
Ok reading the paper again, I think nuclear is dead only dead by cost of capital
-
@tael @soatok baseload generation is an outmoded concept based on the now obsolete idea that non-dispatchable always-on 24/7 sources are always the cheapest but that's no longer the case.
This has lead us to a world where such sources now pay renewable operators to curtail instead because that's cheaper than curtailing those inflexible, non-dispatchable sources, leading to negative electricity prices.
Real grids need enough capacity at all times, not just to service the absolute minimum.
@bascule So in the same breath you:
1. Assert that baseload generation is unnecessary, outmoded, and obsolete
2. Mention that it leads to negative electricity prices, and that's bad
3. Casually mention that "real grids" need enough capacity at *all times* (i.e. that baseload is real and necessary), immediately after admitting that renewable operation fluctuates in outputLook, I'm pro-renewable energy. You do not need to sell me on building more wind and solar and thermal. What I object to is the ridiculous anti-nuclear wishcasting framing of this article and its associated study. Base load is not obsolete, it's a real thing that exists. You can fill that need with nuclear, or you can fill it with oil, gas, coal, and friends.
This is the reality we saw play out in Europe over the last few years as they shuttered their nuclear plants. Renewable energy and batteries did not step in to fill those shoes. So why take this article at face value?
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
@bascule You can put up a major renewables project in a year or two, significant nuclear projects never take less than a decade afaict.
-
New metric shows renewables are 53% cheaper than nuclear power
A new metric for assessing total system costs puts a least-cost mix of offshore wind and solar at about €46 ($54.20)/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark. Researchers tell pv magazine that figure is less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
🫤
"small magic reactors"