|
|
|
|
|
|
by earthnail
383 days ago
|
|
|
LCOE assumes that electricity generation is comparable. However, renewables have a high variability, which puts a much higher load on the grid. The grid investments are sizeable. You not only need to add a lot of batteries, you also have to make other investments, for example to add moment to the grid, because unlike big turbines like nuclear, water or gas, solar or small wind turbines have almost no moment of inertia, which was one of the problems behind Spain's power outage. This isn't new stuff, it's all solvable and countries already do this; the power outage of Spain would've been impossible in Germany for example. It's just important to highlight that with old-school power plants, you don't need a lot of that stuff to stabilise the grid. You need to include the grid costs when calculating the true LCOE, which most of these charts, including the Wikipedia one, don't do. Wikipedia isn't lying about that; they outline this very fact as one of the key weaknesses of the LCOE metric. |
|
|
On the other hand Nuclear LCOE generally assume they can sell a high proportion of their power for the next 40 years.
So really the big hidden assumption is that solar won't eat half their market in that timeframe. And then solar plus batteries eats into it further. Which would drive up their cost, letting solar plus batteries win more business in a vicious cycle.
With the recent Iberian power situation half their nuclear was offline because they were already in a huff because they weren't being paid enough money.