Nuclear has a high capital cost (higher even than renewables) and low operating cost. Where (in the abstract) nuclear can be cheap is that you can run it all the time. So your total cost is low, because not only do you have low operating cost, you make use of your capital 23 of 24 hours. Your actual power production is close to the theoretical maximum.
OK, not say you have a very high penetration of renewables - 75% of your power comes from renewables. Well it is not going to provide 75% 24 hours a day or close to it. It will provide 100% sometimes and 90% sometimes and 75% and so on, down to 10% sometimes. (With that high a pentration, it probably won't ever drop below 10%). So, say you are using nuclear as backup. Well you have to have a nuclear power plant capable of producing 90% of your needs and then run it at a lot less than capacity most of the time. So your cheap nuclear power (not that it was ever than cheap) suddenly becomes extremely expensive. The most lowest estimates I've seen from independent sources of nuclear power is 11 cents a kWh. Use those plants to shape a grid with a high penetration of renewables and that changes to 22 cents per kWh or 33 cents per kWh. In comparison, Commonwealth Edison, who has been widely criticized for overpaying for electricity, buys electricity for an average of a bit over 7.5 cents a kWh in the merchant power market.
Let's go the other way. Assume mostly nuclear, and try to complement
it with renewables. OK, well nuclear as I said is baseload. To get the
most out of it run it at maximum capacity producing the same amount
day and night. There are two extra steps for more penetration. We can
use various forms of smart grid and just plain old time of day pricing
to encourage shifting of as much demand to base, so as high a percent
of demand as we can manage is baseload. And we can build the plants
for a bit beyond baseload, throttle them down a bit for the minimum
demand period, up a bit during higher demand. Still not handling peak,
but doing what is known as load following. So now you you can run
plants at 70% capacity instead of 90% which is not that big a price
addition. But still need some for peaking and also for unexpected
increases in demand. And renewables don't give you shit there. I mean
the wind blows when it will, the sun shines when it will. So even
you try to use renewables for peaking or demand response you can't
count on them being there when you want them. Unless you put in place
the same amount of renewables that would if you had no nuclear, and
the same long distance transmission, and the same storage. And at the
point you get power when you want it, but you also get power when the
nukes are already providing all you need. So you end up having to
discard most of what your renewable sources produce. Just as trying
to using nuclear as backup for renewables ends up with very expensive
nuclear, trying to use renewables as backup for nuclear ends up with
very expensive renewables. Which if you think about it makes sense.
They are both capital intensive. Neither are truly demand responsive.
They have similar flaws, other than nuclear being a hell of a lot more
deadly. Neither compensates for the other's weaknesses. Not much is
gained from mixing them.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com