Berlin-based climate research institute Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) has released a new study indicating that, in the last decade, the cost of solar power has dropped by 87 percent, and the cost of battery storage by 85 percent.
Solar and nuclear address completely different goals.
I know. Nuclear provides base load power, which can be argued is not needed any more.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/
Maybe I missed some points by skimming, but the arguments made in that article are that:
1 Australian researcher agrees with his stance
a region had 22% of its power produced by wind at one point
I guess the claim “it can be argued” is technically proven true, but the majority opinion I keep hearing from the electrical grid engineers in the news is the opposite
And, well, sometimes it just simply is night, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. We don’t have the battery tech to run from storage alone
But, honestly why wouldn’t we use nuclear? It’s the one power source we have without any real downsides untill ITER finally brings positive results
Do you really think this isn’t already taken into account?
Nobody is making that argument, as far as I’m aware. There are plenty of ways of storing energy, e.g. pumped hydro, that would work in conjunction with battery storage.
The obvious one. It’s wildly expensive when compared to renewables, and that’s before the usual nuclear build issues of cost and schedule overruns.
It can be argued but only poorly.
Feel free to offer corrections.
The argument is one of efficiency and load distribution. Base load power plants are capable of greater efficiency than variable ones. This is down to optimisations made around specific output levels and the infrastructure required to support said loads. For example if you know the characteristics of your power output and that of the grid you can build a transformer or switch mode power supply to bridge that specific gap. This outperforms variable input transformers in every case.
There is an argument that low efficiency doesn’t matter if the source is renewable, but this fails to take into consideration the embodied energy cost of producing renewable generators, not to mention the increased cost. An inefficient system may not produce enough energy over the course of its lifetime compared to the energy it cost to make.
Finally, most sources of renewables are intermittent and are not necessarily related to the population’s power consumption. This makes the storing of energy necessary in order to regulate supply. Storage of energy is a large source of inefficiency and one of the key areas that is being focused on. Base load plant is absolutely necessary to minimise this inefficiency as much as possible.
For a good overview I recommend this site from Penn State Uni: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme807/node/667
These sound more like arguments in support of a distributed power grid rather than arguments for nuclear.
You keep referring to inefficiency but in real terms nuclear is so expensive that inefficiencies in renewables are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
What do you mean by a distributed power grid? Do you mean power generation happening locally? This is already a thing and is growing in the form of Combined Heat and Power. This doesn’t get rid of the need for base load, the overall grid will still need balancing and will still have a base load unless you plan to disconnect local grids from each other in which case welcome to Texas…
Money is not the point here (even though nuclear really doesn’t cost much per kWh). I’m talking about the need to build a system that will produce more power over it’s lifetime than it costs to make. This is still something that is surprisingly close in many cases so any extra bit of inefficiency risks making the overall system pointless.