But nuclear power plants? Completely uncorrelated. If each one produces power 85% of the time, then you need two, and you'll almost always have power.
Not really true. French nuclear output drops every time there's a European heatwave. It used to be the only time that the cross-channel link rank backwards (UK powering France).
I think France responded to this in the context of climate change by changing the protection standards for their rivers?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/12/france.nuclear
We made our bed and now we get to lie in it.
It’s not the technology’s fault we decided not to build any more power plants.
However, having said this, I would like to see a model of this with all the generation potential and costs involved, because right now we are all speculating. One can think of a multi-generation options, with wind and solar being the first and default option, battery (and other storage options) being the next option if wind and solar aren't enough, and gas being the third option if required.
Someone must have created a model like this?
In-depth studies petition that "the European energy system would strongly profit from exploiting the implications of these regimes for continent-scale wind generation patterns." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540172/ and "Such a pan-European wind power system would provide a stable output across a wide range of large-scale weather conditions" "but also requires enhanced transmission". This enhanced european grid network benefits to other forms of power production and is already planed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318476478_Balancing... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211...
There are ways to reduce loss induced by long powerlines, mainly HVDC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current )
All this is also true for solar, and there is even at least one megaproject: https://www.suncable.sg/
Nuclear power is not magic either and can also suffer from disruptions. For example, if the delivery of uranium fuel is delayed, if there is a CODID-19 pandemic so workers are unavailable for maintenance work, if there are strikes, if there are Greenpeace activists who have breached the security lines sitting on the roof, etc...
In fact, I believe that the reliability of the German grid has gone up after Energiewende. Though it was a long time since I looked at it so I don't have a source handy. Reason being that the main source of power outages is disruptions in the electricity grid and not in the electricity production.
The availability for wind power in the North Sea is about 50%. Admittedly, lower than 85%
It's not only lower. It's 35% lower. That's a lot of lower.
Aside from hydro, which I very much like, but it has its own limitations, what else comes even close to nuclear?
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data...
I'd say nuclear is very much predictable.
It's the point for solar/wind energy.
Neither can nuclear power. Nuclear power has significant and often unpredictable down-times making the power source not as reliable as one might think. In Sweden the availability for nuclear power is on average something like 85%. Availability depends on the age of the nuclear power plant, what the staff situation is and how tight the regulations are. Can't run the plant if most of the staff is home sick and tighter regulations means more downtime for inspections.
The availability for wind power in the North Sea is about 50%. Admittedly, lower than 85% but you can make up for it by building many wind farms.
> Currently, we’re paying 31 Euro cents in Germany per kWh while French customers whose grid has a large share of nuclear pay just 17 Euro cents per kWh on average.
That is an argument for tighter integration of electricity grids between countries. But also 31 - 17 = 14 cents/kWh. The cost of electricity isn't a problem for most households (in my household the static fee is the biggest expense even during the winter months).