Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by sandos on Thursday June 16, 2022 @03:27AM
(#31763382)
Yup, but didn't we already say that renewables are cheaper per kWh? So then with any storage renewables should still be the cheap bulk generation.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by MagnumOpus on Thursday June 16, 2022 @05:18AM
(#31763975)
You said that, that doesn't mean it is true. And it probably isn't true north of 50 degrees of latitute where lots of the people who need energy live.
France's nuclear fleet has an all-in cost of 7c/kWh, which is roughly the same as the cost of solar or wind power in France, but without the need for storage or smart grids that doubles the cost of solar/wind. (For all this remember that France has about a third of the insolation of California or Arizona per year, or maybe half at best in some places.)
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by philipkglass on Thursday June 16, 2022 @12:51PM
(#31768253)
For all this remember that France has about a third of the insolation of California or Arizona per year, or maybe half at best in some places.
I don't think that is correct. This is a table of average insolation for different cities around the world derived from NASA's Surface meteorology and Solar Energy data set: http://stalix.com/isolation.pdf
Los Angeles gets 5.4 kWh/m^2/day. San Francisco gets 4.9. Lyon, Paris, and Toulouse get 3.7, 3.3, and 3.7 respectively.
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
by stormbrew on Thursday June 16, 2022 @11:56PM
(#31773959)
I dunno if this is what gp meant to say but didn't convey properly, but the average per year is pretty irrelevant once you leave the subtropics. You need enough power for the lowest level of light part of the year, which is also the highest total energy use part of the year (much of that is achieved through individual home heating with burning fuel, but electrification is necessary to have any hope of even stalling climate trends).