Ops typo 0.01 as should have been obvious by the calculation.
If you just look at the graphs you will see that actual production is well below the required ~0.8-1.9 TWh load for several days in a row.
Only because they had insufficient production. If you do the optimization extra production vs vs storage. It's more or less X$/kWh for storage, but Y$/kWh / (numbers of hours you would be storing it) for generation.
(to simplify) If you pay say 100$ per kWh of storage and 1,000$ per kWh of generation then storage is only a net savings up to 10 hours between generation and usage.
This ends up working out so you want enough generation that in the absolute worst day you still produce more electricity than you need. Be that from nuclear or wind. It's much cheaper to do this with returnables over very large areas.
Overcapacity is not inherently a bad thing as long as it's cheaper on net than the other options. It does absolutely destroy more expensive sources of production, but that's how economies are supposed to operate.
> Ops typo 0.01 as should have been obvious by the calculation.
It's not obvious that you made a typo there. Sure, reducing the cost by one cent is only ~70$ per citizen per year. But it's also only one cent, which is not much of difference, so you wouldn't really have a point there. The price difference to Germany on the other hand is about ten cents (=0.1 EUR).
What's more likely, you got yet another thing wrong after getting so many things wrong, or it was a simple typo?
> Only because they had insufficient production. If you do the optimization extra production vs vs storage. It's more or less X$/kWh for storage, but Y$/kWh / (numbers of hours you would be storing it) for generation.
There are days where production is 1/10th of the requirement, followed by days where production is double that required. Some days, there just isn't enough wind. What's the overcapacity required there? Where exactly does it show up in your earlier calculation of kWh cost?
It's pretty telling that you're ready to point out the demand to production discrepancy for nuclear, but when it comes to wind, which has far higher such discrepancies, you basically ignore it.
> Overcapacity is not inherently a bad thing as long as it's cheaper on net than the other options. It does absolutely destroy more expensive sources of production, but that's how economies are supposed to operate.
Overcapacity destroys electricity infrastructure if it's not manageable anymore. Negative energy prices signify that the grid is nearing its limits.
Also, if you end up needing 5-10x more capacity than base load, is it really still cheaper?
Frances electricity prices are 0.01 euro’s lower than Great Britten a comparable economy, but France is still higher than much of Europe.
> There are days where production is 1/10th the requirement.
Wind production in a single country on it’s own is extremely variable.
Germany: “The day with the lowest wind yields was 24th July 2018. With an average output of 1338 MW, corresponding to 10 percent of the average daily output, only 32,1 GWh of wind power was fed in on this day.”
However, solar output on that day was not also 10% of normal.
Low solar power and low wind power days are inversely correlated. Further, variability decreases over larger geographic areas.
A realistic look at generation goes something like this.
As an optimization problem you need to compare daily demand which is seasonal and weather dependent with solar and wind generation which are also seasonal and weather dependent. Further, choosing wind locations that match your demand both seasonally and hourly. Figuring out the cost of excess capacity for each generating source.
After doing that you can back fill with imports and hydro generation which is dispatch able over time.
Storage is effectively a last resort, though after building it you want to maximize it’s use which means reducing the need to import and use hydro power.
Finally, on extremely unusual situations you ask some consumers to cut demand and finally use backup generators.
> Germany specifically has very high electricity prices, it’s a poor comparison to the rest of Europe even excluding France.
It's actually a great comparison, because Germany has put a lot of money into renewables, especially wind. Remember, we're comparing nuclear to renewables.
Earlier, you made the claim that renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear and that the only reason that nuclear is competitive is massive subsidies.
If that's true, Germany should at least be competitive. Which it would be, if you took out the taxes. The problem is, it's those taxes that pay for the renewables subsidies:
> Frances electricity prices are 0.01 euro’s lower than Great Britten a comparable economy, but France is still higher than much of Europe.
"Much of Europe" is countries with far lower incomes and little to no taxes on electricity[1]. Among comparable countries, France is among the cheapest, despite not having any geological advantages.
Anyway, the point is not that nuclear is so much cheaper. It really isn't, coal is both cheaper and can support a grid just as well. In this sense, Germany got the worst of both worlds: Lots of toxic coal but also high prices.
> Wind production in a single country on it’s own is extremely variable.
Well yes, that's the issue.
> Low solar power and low wind power days are inversely correlated.
Perhaps, but solar also is far less viable economically.
> Further, variability decreases over larger geographic areas.
So does loss due to transmission.
> After doing that you can back fill with imports and hydro generation which is dispatch able over time.
Well, where do these imports come from? Germany is not exactly a small country, how big of an area do you need to have a stable supply of renewable energy?
Remember, your claim is that renewables are cheaper, yet they need all this infrastructure and an electrical grid spanning vast areas of different countries.
You haven't done the math, you haven't provided a source, so what actually supports this claim?
> Finally, on extremely unusual situations you ask some consumers to cut demand and finally use backup generators.
If you just look at the graphs you will see that actual production is well below the required ~0.8-1.9 TWh load for several days in a row.
Only because they had insufficient production. If you do the optimization extra production vs vs storage. It's more or less X$/kWh for storage, but Y$/kWh / (numbers of hours you would be storing it) for generation.
(to simplify) If you pay say 100$ per kWh of storage and 1,000$ per kWh of generation then storage is only a net savings up to 10 hours between generation and usage.
This ends up working out so you want enough generation that in the absolute worst day you still produce more electricity than you need. Be that from nuclear or wind. It's much cheaper to do this with returnables over very large areas.
Overcapacity is not inherently a bad thing as long as it's cheaper on net than the other options. It does absolutely destroy more expensive sources of production, but that's how economies are supposed to operate.