I hear any amount of anti-solar, anti-wind, pro-nuclear, pro-fossil propaganda all the time from right wing politicians, but anyone who paying attention sees that renewables actually do work. That's why our total energy bill last year was €120 (including taxes, connection fees etc.) because solar panels, heat pump, insulation...

Meanwhile, the nuclear power station that I protested against in the 1980s (Hinkley C in Somerset, UK) still isn't running. It was cancelled at least once (not due to protests, but because then PM Margaret Thatcher could see it was obviously not economical), then deacds ago the proposal came out of retirement and they started building again.

Let's talk about intermittency: my solar panel installation began decades after Hinkley C and they've operated for a decade and a half, but Hinkley Point C has yet to produce a single kWh of electricity.

Let's talk about cost: The bill merely for construction of Hinkley C has risen to a whopping €18000 per kW output, which is a far cry from the ~€500 per kW that you pay retail for a solar installation. And that doesn't even include the uranium that they need to import from Russia to run the thing - while the sun costs nothing.

At this point, nuclear just looks absurd.

I'm in Australia, living in a house with PV panels and a battery. I sell electricity to the grid in the mornings and evenings and buy during the day, if needed. Here are the prices per kWh sellers may get tomorrow morning, the percentage at the bottom is the share of renewables in the grid:

...any more inflexible supply from the coal power plants (or nuclear if we had it) and they would go negative.

What the lobbying for NPP in countries like the Netherlands is doing is securing legislation where "you" as in the company operating the nuclear reactor actually CAN afford that.

A big component of that is making the concept of "base load generators" a special category with financial compensation. So even at negative prices costs are compensated.

@notjustbikes

There seems to be a widespread desire to forget that there is such a thing as a battery.

"The neglected factor is the military dependence on civil nuclear industries. Maintaining a nuclear armed navy or weapons programme requires constant access to generic reactor technologies, skilled workers and special materials. Without a civilian nuclear industry, military nuclear capabilities are significantly more challenging and costly to sustain. "

The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors

If billions are being invested to power submarines not homes, the public deserves to know.

The Conversation (theconversation.com)

The remote fusion collection contraptions don't have any moving part either. I think this is important, maintenance-wise.
@sgued @notjustbikes

So we have a solution.

Give away 3 hours of electricity for free in the middle of the day. When we have the most amount of negative prices and spare solar capacity.

Perfect for charging evs. Or shifting loads away form peak.

Also a big boom in home batteries is also seeing demand reduction in evening peaks. Charge own batteries, rather then export, then use your own electricity in peak. Or sell it back to the grid when it is needed.

The hours the market wants back: Free daytime power, or a fix for solar and wind curtailment?

What does it mean when an offer appears consumer-friendly but is also system-convenient? And what becomes visible when price is placed beside curtailment rather than read in isolation?

Renew Economy (reneweconomy.com.au)

Cancel renewables.
Start up a nuclear program (despite multiple failed attempts).
Throw money at gas and coal.

They didn't win the election

What you're talking about is "dispatchable power" from "peaker plants" which is the literal opposite of what a nuclear reactor provides.

#solar #autarkie
@notjustbikes