Well as long as you have vast amount of storage capacity + overprovision, or an alternative source of on-demand electricity, the cost of which I never see included when comparing to on-demand energy sources like nuclear of fossil fuels.
> Well as long as you have vast amount of storage capacity + overprovision
Why would that need to be? The full needs need to be taken into account. But that's a TCO calculation, not something to add to the solar cost.
Nuclear energy in Europe tends to be way more expensive than initially budgeted. Resulting in a crazy difference in the kWh cost vs solar/wind. And there's more ways to store "electricity" than just batteries.
Because what is implicit in saying that solar (or wind) is cheaper than nuclear per W produced is that it is a viable alternative to nuclear. But to be an alternative you need to be able to meet the demand whether there is light/wind or not (with a near zero probability of a blackout). And if you need to do that then you need either a bunch of alternative on demand sources of energy (UK is using LNG) or some big storage capacity (+overprovision to fill them when it is sunny/windy). Nuclear doesn't need that. If you don't factor those costs you are comparing apples and oranges.
> Because what is implicit in saying that solar (or wind) is cheaper than nuclear per W produced is that it is a viable alternative to nuclear.
I do not see that implication.
Solar and wind is significantly cheaper than nuclear. That doesn't mean it is a replacement. That implies that there's a great way to solve the obvious drawbacks solar and wind have because of the high cost difference, plus speed/time things can be built.
A country needs to figure out their TCO and the energy mix. Which means yeah, the volatility needs to be solved. Which means that there needs to be more than solar/wind. But at the same time, nobody wants to invest in nuclear. It isn't commercially viable. It is important to not have to high electricity prices. Wikipedia has quite a section on the newest nuclear power station in the UK and the kWh cost for consumers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_.... The cost was initially estimated at £24 per MWh but could now be £92.5.
Nuclear power stations have crazy cost overruns. The initial estimations are far too low (except maybe in China because they have recent experience).
> And if you need to do that then you need either a bunch of alternative on demand sources of energy (UK is using LNG) or some big storage capacity (+overprovision to fill them when it is sunny/windy). Nuclear doesn't need that.
Nuclear doesn't need a backup? UK built nuclear and has LNG. It's not so black and white as you stated.
That was true in the 70s. I think anything built in europe since the 80s can do load following and France does that every day. I think by regulation new plants must be able to adapt their production by something like 5% per 10min (or something of that order of magnitude), well within the range you need to meet intra day variations.
Now whether it is optimal economically is another question. If you have some sources of energy in your grid that cost per usage (eg fossil fuels), you should rather switch those off than nuclear which costs the same whether you use it or not. But if your grid is almost all nuclear (eg France), you do load following.
That’s news to me. How do these newer reactors do it? I thought nuclear reactors are slow to ramp up. Are they over producing thermal energy relative to the plants electricity output?
The newer ones can. Though that's partly my dislike. There's always yet another new technological solution for the various drawbacks. Which often are unproven (e.g. SMRs) and that often results in crazy cost overruns.
Nuclear has a crazy high fixed cost so ideally you still run it continuously.
