News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on $22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cable from North Africa. Parent comment

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by epistasis on Thursday March 09, 2023 @05:54PM (#35087991)
Your chart shows residential prices for the total us average ~$140/MWh, not $250/MWh.

Plus, this is the total cost including transmission and distribution, which is roughly half the retail cost. Generation costs average less than $70/MWh, including expensive peaking power in the average.

You want to compare the £150/MWh to generation costs of the alternatives in the UK, which are a fraction of £150.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by nottathrowaway3 on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:52PM (#35088573)
> generation costs of the alternatives in the UK

I'm all for renewable or nuclear energy, whatever's cheaper/strategic. As long as it's not burning fossil fuels.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by epistasis on Friday March 10, 2023 @01:07PM (#35098383)
On- and off-shore wind plus storage is going to be a lot cheaper than nuclear, as well this massive transmission line. Hell, at £150/MWh, I bet that solar+storage is cheaper in the dreary parts of the UK.

Maybe Rolls Royce will figure out cheap SMR nuclear, but that won't deploy until late 2030s, I would guess, if it does work.

We are fortunate to have good carbon free alternatives to nuclear, after decades of hard work by renewable technologists. It's real tech.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by nottathrowaway3 on Friday March 10, 2023 @05:01PM (#35101786)
> 2030s

> Going to be XYZ

Yeah sure, but every second we spend thinking and talking about it is another second of burning coal and oil.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_mix_of_UK.s...

[ Parent | on HN ]