I saw Illinois EnergyProf‘s video a while back and I warmly recommand it. Some quick notes : The percentage of atomic electricity for France shown here is taken at one point in time, from...
I saw Illinois EnergyProf‘s video a while back and I warmly recommand it.
Some quick notes :
The percentage of atomic electricity for France shown here is taken at one point in time, from electricitymap.org, on a windy day I’d guess. Yearly average is more like 71 percent. Installed capacity could provide for 80 percent.
This video does note that generating electricity isn’t just a question of engineering, but I feel that discussing the economics of energy should always start with the realization that without energy, there wouldn’t be much of an economy. Since we are bound to forgo fossil fuels because of the climate and, failing that, because of forseeable depletion, should also be considered the fact that we quickly need to electrify all the machines that currently burn fossiles, such as automobiles and home heating. I am not even considering the hypothetical capture of atmospheric carbon dioxyde, which would completely upturn the economics of energy.
a nuclear powerplant is dispatchable. They are seldom used that way because lowering the output does not save money, but considering the grid in its entirety, it is indeed possible. One does not understand economics by focusing on the revenue of one single factory.
since we talk about economics, should also be considered the cost of climate change, both in its forseeable consequences, its risks, and in all the efforts required to decarbonize all the things. Which includes all that needs to be done to compensate and recycle the whole industry of fossil fuels, including the hundred of thousands of workers that are going to lose their jobs. Talking of which, investing in a gas-burning powerplant doesn’t seem very wise. Another difficulty is rarely mentioned : said industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep its positions, and is not particularly known to be a fair and agreable player. Countering it will not come cheap.
I have a special grip concerning the Levelized Cost of Electricity (as used in this video, but usually LCOE is for Levelized Cost of Energy). Discussing, as above, what's dispatchable and what is not, is important because electricity isn't your average manufactured product. It must be produced on-demand, just-in-time, and storage at grid-scale is so dificult as to be considered inexistant. The cost of a MWh per year is of course an important figure, but it's far from the only one. Producing when clients are ready to buy is what counts, and this video does a very poor job at accounting for the economics of this. Namely, comparing nuclear with wind does not make sens at all. What should be compared is nuclear vs (wind + ZE gas). A gas-fueled powerplant that does not emit CO2 is technically doable. All that is needed is to capture the exaust and to sequester it. Good luck with the economics of that. As far as I know this possibility remains purely theoritical and has never been implemented at utility scale over a multidecade timeframe.
on safety : it may be counter-intuitive and certainly not newsworthy, but nuclear is the by far the safest way there is to generate electricity, even accounting for Chernobyl and Fukushima.
I saw Illinois EnergyProf‘s video a while back and I warmly recommand it.
Some quick notes :
The percentage of atomic electricity for France shown here is taken at one point in time, from electricitymap.org, on a windy day I’d guess. Yearly average is more like 71 percent. Installed capacity could provide for 80 percent.
This video does note that generating electricity isn’t just a question of engineering, but I feel that discussing the economics of energy should always start with the realization that without energy, there wouldn’t be much of an economy. Since we are bound to forgo fossil fuels because of the climate and, failing that, because of forseeable depletion, should also be considered the fact that we quickly need to electrify all the machines that currently burn fossiles, such as automobiles and home heating. I am not even considering the hypothetical capture of atmospheric carbon dioxyde, which would completely upturn the economics of energy.
a nuclear powerplant is dispatchable. They are seldom used that way because lowering the output does not save money, but considering the grid in its entirety, it is indeed possible. One does not understand economics by focusing on the revenue of one single factory.
since we talk about economics, should also be considered the cost of climate change, both in its forseeable consequences, its risks, and in all the efforts required to decarbonize all the things. Which includes all that needs to be done to compensate and recycle the whole industry of fossil fuels, including the hundred of thousands of workers that are going to lose their jobs. Talking of which, investing in a gas-burning powerplant doesn’t seem very wise. Another difficulty is rarely mentioned : said industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep its positions, and is not particularly known to be a fair and agreable player. Countering it will not come cheap.
I have a special grip concerning the Levelized Cost of Electricity (as used in this video, but usually LCOE is for Levelized Cost of Energy). Discussing, as above, what's dispatchable and what is not, is important because electricity isn't your average manufactured product. It must be produced on-demand, just-in-time, and storage at grid-scale is so dificult as to be considered inexistant. The cost of a MWh per year is of course an important figure, but it's far from the only one. Producing when clients are ready to buy is what counts, and this video does a very poor job at accounting for the economics of this. Namely, comparing nuclear with wind does not make sens at all. What should be compared is nuclear vs (wind + ZE gas). A gas-fueled powerplant that does not emit CO2 is technically doable. All that is needed is to capture the exaust and to sequester it. Good luck with the economics of that. As far as I know this possibility remains purely theoritical and has never been implemented at utility scale over a multidecade timeframe.
on safety : it may be counter-intuitive and certainly not newsworthy, but nuclear is the by far the safest way there is to generate electricity, even accounting for Chernobyl and Fukushima.