Lemdro.id

0 points

1 year ago

@MattMastodon @Sodis If you include construction and disposal (and transport and so on…) it is called lifecycle costs. First image shows that per energy produced (sorry german, »AKW neu« is new-built nuclear).

Uranium comes from all over the world. Second image shows the situation a few years ago. Niger is place 5, Russia place 7.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

@MattMastodon @Sodis We’re going in circles. Volatile sources can only supply 40% of current demand for £50/MWh. The question is what fills the rest.

If storage, then the price goes up immediately by at least two conversion losses from/to storage, in addition to the cost of storage itself. Which doesn’t exist at the needed scalability.

Pointing to single projects is not meaningful, as we need to build a fleet anyway, which has its own dynamics.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Deleted by creator

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

@MattMastodon @Sodis

I’ll try to explain the 40%, sorry for the parts that you already know.

Electric energy is always produced at the same time (and »place« roughly) as it is consumed. (You can’t pump electricity into some reservoir to be consumed later, you always need a different energy form for storage.)

The problem with volatile sources is that they mostly (more than half) produce energy at the wrong time and/or the wrong place, and at other times produce nothing.
⇒

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

@MattMastodon @Sodis

⇒ Aside: the »place« problem is that you can’t build solar panels and wind turbines just anywhere, and they need a lot of space. E. g. Germany has now the problem that the wind blows much better in the north, but the industry is more in the south. So, you need a lot more/stronger transmission lines. Same for offshore wind: more wind at sea, but you need a lot of cables.

The more wind and solar you already have, the more the good places are already taken.
⇒

report

[ - ]

0 points

1 year ago

@MattMastodon @Sodis

⇒ (But at least we already have transmission tech, it is now just a question of materials and effort.)

So, assume that we have enough wind and solar that we can regularly produce 100% of demand from them. You can imagine peaks just touching the demand line at top demand.

(You could imagine more than that, but that would mean overbuilding, which hurts the economics quite badly while not making the end result much better.)

⇒

report

Show more comments

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

@Ardubal @Sodis

OK so I have googled the men capacity factor and of course #nuclear has nearly 100% and #renewables only 40%.

But this just means it produces on average 40% of it’s capacity. You’d need a sunny windy day to get 100%

What I’ve read about is a #SWB (Solar wind and battery) system with massive overcapacity

So biomass, hydro and battery can take up the slack when needed. Or gas - which has a very low mean capacity factor <10% but is usually used as a last resort

Cheap #zero #CO2

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Deleted by creator

report