|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jul 31, 2012 15:20:40 GMT 9.5
Hot off of the Presses from the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (Dept. Resources Energy & Tourism) the Australian Energy Technology Assessment. www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdfLCOE in 2020 (AUD)Nuclear G3+ LWR = $99/MWh Nuclear SMR = $113/MWh Solar Thermal w/Storage Central Tower = $208/MWh PV Tracking dual axis = $206/MWh Wind (onshore) = $90/MWh Wind (offshore) = $178/MWh Geothermal Hot rock = $215/MWh There are 40 Technologies assessed in this report. Government is including Nuclear in technology assessments, this is a good development. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 31, 2012 16:05:07 GMT 9.5
From page 24–25 we have:So I think we can already say that their estimates for wind are massive underestimates.
Also looking at pages 31–32 they are only planning on capturing 90% of emissions from 'clean' coal plants and they expect to take a 9% thermal efficiency hit and pages 34–35 indicate that gas would only have an 85% capture (though with only about a 6% efficiency loss).
I also think that their assumption of 38% capacity factor for the wind turbines is a bit optimistic (sure, at a really good site, but if you mass deploy them you'll run out of good sites, Denmark is down to about 20% or so due to that).
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Jul 31, 2012 16:22:50 GMT 9.5
Agreed, 38% is very optimistic. However some of the average capacity factors from turbines in South Australia are pushing to that mark (source: windfarmperformance.info/). But these are optimal sites, eventually land will run out in optimal sites, and development laws will inhibit some from being placed near load centres. But it all depends on the site, terrain, and local wind speeds. |
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Aug 1, 2012 11:34:48 GMT 9.5
The key question, as Anon points out in that quote, is whether a MWh of wind is the same as a MWh of nuclear in terms of its ability to displace fossil fuels. I will write more about this shortly, I'm doing a commissioned piece on it and will link to the BNC blog in due course.
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 1, 2012 12:12:26 GMT 9.5
The key question, as Anon points out in that quote, is whether a MWh of wind is the same as a MWh of nuclear in terms of its ability to displace fossil fuels. I will write more about this shortly, I'm doing a commissioned piece on it and will link to the BNC blog in due course. Of course, agreed. BREE is fully aware of this factor, specifically stating that GIII Nuclear is the only suitable as an alternative to Coal generation due to it's large MW scale, and SMRs to Gas turbines (p.55). Also upon request to BREE you can receive the model they used to calculate these figures, including graphs of LCOE for all States in Australia, for each generating source. |
|
|
|
Post by Barry Brook on Aug 1, 2012 12:58:04 GMT 9.5
By the way, thanks QM and Anon for pointing out those page references to focus on - very helpful for the short essay I'm writing on this. Great to have this type of feedback on BNC.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 1, 2012 16:28:31 GMT 9.5
The report is interesting, though i think the result is not as good for nuclear as some here seem to think. the way the results are being reported, shows a different stance: www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/study-rates-nuclear-a-cheap-source-of-energy-20120731-23d56.htmlNuclear price on par with photovoltaics? and wind being cheaper? This does not sound like a good business perspective, especially as nuclear has only a tiny chance of getting a commercial reactor running in Australia before 2020. (2030 looks much more realistic, and then photovoltaics might already be cheaper, according to this report...) |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 1, 2012 16:46:30 GMT 9.5
The graphs I saw in the .pdf didn't show PV on par with nuclear and only showed wind cheaper because they ignored the need for energy storage, had they factored that in the renewables would not be even close to competitive with nuclear (in fact we can't even be sure they'll work on the scale we need them to).
One thing which is curious is that they project the LCOE of nuclear to rise, they also assume that wind and solar will continue getting cheaper which is not something we should depend on (they may be as cheap as they're going to get, when you consider that wind is basically obsolete technology that's not such an unreasonable assumption).
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 1, 2012 17:00:27 GMT 9.5
I printed the graphs from page 81 to 84. They show price ranges from 2012, 20, 30, 40 and 50.
the graphs are labeled upside down, so i think printing is the best option.
the technologies seem to be ranked by centred price, so you can see that PV "overtakes" nuclear by just reading labels from top down....
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 2, 2012 0:09:22 GMT 9.5
The key question, as Anon points out in that quote, is whether a MWh of wind is the same as a MWh of nuclear in terms of its ability to displace fossil fuels. I will write more about this shortly, I'm doing a commissioned piece on it and will link to the BNC blog in due course. Of course, agreed. BREE is fully aware of this factor, specifically stating that GIII Nuclear is the only suitable as an alternative to Coal generation due to it's large MW scale, and SMRs to Gas turbines (p.55). Also upon request to BREE you can receive the model they used to calculate these figures, including graphs of LCOE for all States in Australia, for each generating source. It says that Nuclear is only suitable as a large scale coal replacement, not that it is the only suitable coal replacement. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 2, 2012 6:13:42 GMT 9.5
The graphs I saw in the .pdf didn't show PV on par with nuclear and only showed wind cheaper because they ignored the need for energy storage, had they factored that in the renewables would not be even close to competitive with nuclear (in fact we can't even be sure they'll work on the scale we need them to). wind already is cheaper than nuclear. It will provide about 20% electricity in basically all countries soon. (a lot below what it already does in denmark) Solar will also rise to at least the level in Germany. 25 of annual production are enough to have PV solar produce nearly 100% of summer afternoon demand. both developments cannot really be stopped, as they are driven by pure economic reasons, though solar might be delayed a little. any nuclear power that wants to enter this market, needs to be flexible enough to go down to about 0% output and cheap enough to be economically viable without peak price support in summer. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 2, 2012 12:26:10 GMT 9.5
wind already is cheaper than nuclear. Only if you ignore the need to have almost 100% backup ready to step in immediately. Once you take the backup power into account wind ends up more expensive. It will provide about 20% electricity in basically all countries soon. (a lot below what it already does in denmark) That's assuming it is even possible to do that, we simply do not know if wind actually can supply 20% (Denmark only manages to exceed it because they can use the rest of the European grid to prop up their bird blenders). both developments cannot really be stopped, as they are driven by pure economic reasons, though solar might be delayed a little. Sure they can, cut the subsidies (whenever renewable energy subsidies are cut there is a rash of project cancellations, almost as if they were only being done because the government was overpaying). any nuclear power that wants to enter this market, needs to be flexible enough to go down to about 0% output and cheap enough to be economically viable without peak price support in summer. Nuclear only needs that kind of load following ability when you get to French levels of grid penetration (and LFTRs look like they'll be very good at load following). |
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Aug 2, 2012 12:35:35 GMT 9.5
I suppose what you are saying Anon is that when looking at the LCOE of wind you need to also factor in the LCOE of the OC and CC Gas Turbines. While wind has between 90-99$/MWh over 2020-2050 you need to factor in at some point a OCGT or CCGT at 239-281$/MWh 120-146$/Mwh respectively. Which will sit there idling 30-35% of the time.
Is that a correct interpretation of your comments Anon?
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 2, 2012 12:47:53 GMT 9.5
QuarkingMad --- Figure in whatever alternative generation is available to you at the least LCOE. Here such balancing agents are primarily provided by hydropower and only secondarily by gas turbines.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 2, 2012 13:53:58 GMT 9.5
I suppose what you are saying Anon is that when looking at the LCOE of wind you need to also factor in the LCOE of the OC and CC Gas Turbines. While wind has between 90-99$/MWh over 2020-2050 you need to factor in at some point a OCGT or CCGT at 239-281$/MWh 120-146$/Mwh respectively. Which will sit there idling 30-35% of the time. Is that a correct interpretation of your comments Anon? If you're ignoring emissions than that's pretty much it (if it must be carbon neutral or entirely 'renewable' then you'll have to account for the cost of storage). Whilst hydro is the best (or maybe I should say least worst) source of balancing for wind we don't have enough hydro resources for it so at some point are going to need something else to do the job. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 2, 2012 17:00:58 GMT 9.5
If you're ignoring emissions than that's pretty much it (if it must be carbon neutral or entirely 'renewable' then you'll have to account for the cost of storage). Whilst hydro is the best (or maybe I should say least worst) source of balancing for wind we don't have enough hydro resources for it so at some point are going to need something else to do the job. i disagree with your approach. you cannot include 100% back-up into the price of wind or solar, and you do not do it for nuclear either. www.washingtonpost.com/national/bill-for-damaged-san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-in-california-hits-165-million-and-counting/2012/07/31/gJQATqisNX_story.htmlwith wind, the situation is simple: small business will rise the turbines and add cheap power to the grid. and grid flexibility will cover times, when it doesn t add electricity. part of it will be water power, part of it will be ramping up fossile plants, mostly gas. there will not be a massive "idling" reserve at low penetration of wind (20%). the situation with PV solar is similar. house owners will put it onto their roofs, the moment it gets cheaper than what they pay. they will not provide back-up. again, this is pure economics. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 2, 2012 17:34:11 GMT 9.5
If they won't provide backup then who will? Someone is going to have to pay to provide the backup for the unreliable sources (and given the tendency of wind to every so often drop down into the single digit percentage over entire regions you will need to backup almost all of it).
With nuclear you really only need to be ready for a few plants going off-line suddenly due to equipment failure (as is currently the case with fossil fuelled power plants), not for every single reactor to scram in the same hour (if that does happen you've got bigger things to worry about than a mere blackout).
The economics also are that renewable energy from wind and solar just don't make sense if you've got a grid connection without government subsidies of some kind, cut the subsidies and very few people will put solar panels on their roof.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 2, 2012 20:47:43 GMT 9.5
Well, i guess you can try to legislate to block grid access for solar PV, but that will be incredibly difficult.
your demand for 100% back-up shows a lack of understanding of the options offered by alternative power.
take pumped storage. at the moment, it is filled during night by nuclear/coal power and then released during afternoon peak demand.
by adding wind and solar, the same plant might be used 3 times per day.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 2, 2012 22:06:20 GMT 9.5
Well, i guess you can try to legislate to block grid access for solar PV, but that will be incredibly difficult. I wouldn't block, just give the power company the right to decide whether or not to take any excess power offered to the grid (and I wouldn't require them to pay anything more than wholesale for it if they do think they can use it). your demand for 100% back-up shows a lack of understanding of the options offered by alternative power. No, actually it shows a lack of understanding of the need to have rolling blackouts (if you try to run on wind and solar without 100% backup (which could be storage, fossil fuels, neighbours who have a less dysfunctional energy policy, etc)) then you will have rolling blackouts, no ifs or buts about it). take pumped storage. at the moment, it is filled during night by nuclear/coal power and then released during afternoon peak demand. by adding wind and solar, the same plant might be used 3 times per day. OTOH we don't have enough suitable geology to build enough pumped storage (and even then, to provide the kind of backup that'd get you through a week of still air and cloudy skies in the middle of winter you're going to be looking at truly vast storage, at least a week). |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 3, 2012 7:22:29 GMT 9.5
It is not just me, who sees economical problems for nuclear in a competition with cheap renewables. The boss of General Electric just stated the same simple point. www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5f849de4-dbf8-11e1-86f8-00144feab49a.html#axzz22QXsJIqEIf an alternative source produces electricity at a cheaper rate, it will push into the market and it will be very difficult to restrict it. you cannot stop households from using their own PV power. you cannot even stop them from providing their neighbours with cheap solar power. small wind farms are often build by local communities and their officials at least have some influence on local grids, possibly they even own or control them. They will not keep their own cheap power out of the grid. Among the people who oppose renewables the most, there are free market advocates who will have a hard time arguing against renewable access to grid. And at the end, renewables can simply undercut all prices. they will push into the grid, just half a cent below the coal price without any problem and without any possibility to keep them out. --------------------------- a short look at your list of points: there haven t been any rolling black outs in the countries that approach 20% renewables. It simply will not happen, as the grid and power supply and demand are flexible enough at this low level of renewables. This changes at a higher ratio. If their is no wind for a week, the system will do exactly the same thing as it does, when several nuclear power plants have to been taken offline because of a lack of cooling water. It happens a little more often, but it isn t a real problem. |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Aug 3, 2012 8:13:59 GMT 9.5
While it may be too extreme to have wind and solar pay for all backup, it is true that we have also to take a system wide view of things. After all, it is true that if a source of energy is the cheapest but creates problems elsewhere, some mechanism has to be devised so that problems are kept reasonable. Economist talk of externalities (example: GHG emissions). What appears to be clear is that intermittent sources need a bigger grid than what we have now with centralized generation (see the 100% renewables thread and the german scenarios). Thus customers will have to pay more for the grid, and it will show up on the bill: here in France, the grid is nearly half the price of electricity excluding taxes. The 100% renewables scenarios must also handle large overshoots of production (when it is vastly greater than final consumption) that require huge storage power. These people will provide services to everyone else; it won't be free, so we should keep it to a minimum. The huge problem for renewables will come when subsidies will stop. If production is bought at the spot price, they will have big problems if wind & solar sources are dominant. The marginal cost for them is 0, the price paid will be 0 if they make up the entire consumption. In fact, sod, this problem of the marginal price is so central, that the combination of low marginal prices with high investment costs produces a monopoly. There are 2 paths for this: - The investment cost is so high that only one actor can afford it
- The investment cost is reasonable, but so many people rush into the business that the price becomes too low, and producers go bankrupt
Idling capacity is also necessary for standard grids, but the need will be greater on grids with lots of wind and solar installed capacity. Thus capacity markets will become much larger and their cost will too! To summarize, what we can see is that the grid will cost more to maintain with lots of renewables. So while it may make sense for any individual to put solar panels on his roof, the electricity bill will not go down that much. One will pay more for the grid and idling capacity. The price one will be paid to put 1 kWh on the grid will be much less than one pays when taking 1 kWh from the grid, much more than what happens with centralized power plants today. And much of this is public knowledge: the german grid agency has said that the HV grid will need to nearly double in the future. There is also talk of the capacity market for idling gas plants in the german press, like in the Spiegel . |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 3, 2012 9:55:40 GMT 9.5
sod --- It would be helpful for you to learn what is actually required to have a reliable, on-demand (possibly some load management) grid. What is required depends in part on resources in the grid area but for the unschedulable wind and solar there must be sufficient reserve to meet peak demand during periods of no wind and no solar. The most severe winter night in the midst of a blocking (cold) high, for example.
Anon has it about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 3, 2012 16:29:02 GMT 9.5
It is not just me, who sees economical problems for nuclear in a competition with cheap renewables. The boss of General Electric just stated the same simple point. Renewables are only cheap when government is providing massive subsidies, take away the subsidies and almost no one will touch them. Though it does bring the very real worry that renewable energy can make nuclear uneconomical without even doing anything to help the environment. If an alternative source produces electricity at a cheaper rate, it will push into the market and it will be very difficult to restrict it. But it won't do that unless it is heavily subsided because non-hydro renewable energy is not cheaper (and you still need to pay for the backup power somehow, whether you charge that directly to renewable energy or not someone is going to have to pay for the backup). you cannot stop households from using their own PV power. No, but without a feed in tariff or other government subsidy there's much less motivation for someone grid connected to get such a system (the roof space would be better used for solar hot water anyway). you cannot even stop them from providing their neighbours with cheap solar power. If you aren't subsiding it they'll probably only be providing their neighbours with more expensive power than the grid, who would buy that? Look, the only place where residential solar PV really makes sense is if you're off the grid. small wind farms are often build by local communities and their officials at least have some influence on local grids, possibly they even own or control them. They will not keep their own cheap power out of the grid. But without all those government subsidies those wind farms won't be so cheap (it may not even be worth doing the maintenance on them, a lot of renewable energy systems get abandoned as soon as the subsidy runs out (so those local communities will have to pay to clean up the mess)). Though I should note that local communities don't tend to be doing that much of that down here (probably a good thing, the local communities putting up their own wind farms is one of the reasons the European wind power sector has such lousy capacity factors). Among the people who oppose renewables the most, there are free market advocates who will have a hard time arguing against renewable access to grid. Of course of those free market advocates get their way on renewable energy subsidies it won't matter because no one will be able to turn a profit selling non-hydro renewable energy to the grid. And at the end, renewables can simply undercut all prices. If the government is paying them to undercut any price. Take away the subsidies and see how well they do (why is it that the renewable energy industry follows boom and bust cycles closely aligned with government subsidy policies?). they will push into the grid, just half a cent below the coal price without any problem and without any possibility to keep them out. If the grid operator thinks they are more trouble than they're worth then the grid operator won't take them unless they are legally required to buy. a short look at your list of points: there haven t been any rolling black outs in the countries that approach 20% renewables. Because they are using their neighbours to back up their unreliable crap (Denmark avoids blackouts through buying power at high rates from Norway and Sweden). It simply will not happen, as the grid and power supply and demand are flexible enough at this low level of renewables. This changes at a higher ratio. That is actually not proven. But with enough gas turbines idling (and emitting CO 2 and leakage methane) you can probably keep any amount of unreliable renewables from causing rolling blackouts (but then you won't have done anything to help stop global warming so I can't credit this as a solution). If their is no wind for a week, the system will do exactly the same thing as it does, when several nuclear power plants have to been taken offline because of a lack of cooling water. It happens a little more often, but it isn t a real problem. You know that if we really had to we could keep running those nuclear power plants (which don't have any lack of cooling water, it's worries that the cooling water will come out too hot for the fish downstream that is the reason for the plant shut-down). |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Aug 3, 2012 20:19:35 GMT 9.5
It is not just me, who sees economical problems for nuclear in a competition with cheap renewables. The boss of General Electric just stated the same simple point. I keep seeing the point that renawables are cheap. If this was ture, we would not need feed in tariffs. The problem today is also that the LCoE of all new builds is greater than the spot price in many places. In the EU, that's in part because of the subsidy policy towards renewables. If an alternative source produces electricity at a cheaper rate, it will push into the market and it will be very difficult to restrict it. You just have to tax it, organize demonstrations, etc. you cannot stop households from using their own PV power. you cannot even stop them from providing their neighbours with cheap solar power. True. But households will only do this if the price of the electricity sold this way cover their costs. And as I have said the price of the grid connection will go up -- relatively to consumption -- with intermittent sources. Grid parity means something in the range of €60-80/MWh not the retail price for domestic consummers! small wind farms are often build by local communities and their officials at least have some influence on local grids, possibly they even own or control them. They will not keep their own cheap power out of the grid. They rely on the possibility to sell power to others thanks to the grid. They also rely on the grid to provide power when there's no wind. What will be the energy source when there's little wind and sun? Who will buy the power when it is above consumption? And at the end, renewables can simply undercut all prices. they will push into the grid, just half a cent below the coal price without any problem and without any possibility to keep them out. Lack of revenues at large market penetration will keep them out. there haven t been any rolling black outs in the countries that approach 20% renewables. It simply will not happen, as the grid and power supply and demand are flexible enough at this low level of renewables. This changes at a higher ratio. I agree that today's generation capacity guarantees a low risk of black-out. But, what do we do next once the 20% market share is reached? Because we need to decarbonize not just 20-30% of power generation, but more like 80-90%! If their is no wind for a week, the system will do exactly the same thing as it does, when several nuclear power plants have to been taken offline because of a lack of cooling water. It happens a little more often, but it isn t a real problem. One can waive water exhaust temperature requirements. Thermal power plants can still run in most place even when in times of droughts. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 3, 2012 21:53:19 GMT 9.5
I think that we have a better discussion, if we focus on the paper at hand.
it claims that wind is cheaper than nuclear and that PV solar will be cheaper than nuclear from 2040. It also claims that these two power sources will be the cheapest among a very wide range.
I am just trying to draw conclusions from the facts presented in this paper and from the specific ways that PV solar and landbased wind are deployed.
i think that even if you wanted to, you cannot stop consumers and industry from using PV solar.
you also cannot stop local communities from building wind mills.
there will be no demonstrations against the PV on your neighbours roof!
i agree with you, there is need for regulations at high penetration. but i also think that we will reach a critical penetration long after we get a serious effect for deployment of new nuclear plants.
so nuclear power under the scenario outlined in the article that is the basis of this discussion needs to be:
* cheap. (cheaper than outlined in this scenario).
* safe. much safer than reactors are today. (fast mass penetration of nuclear needs support by the people)
* flexible enough to earn money in a scenario with 20+% of solar and wind penetration.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 3, 2012 22:39:59 GMT 9.5
I think that we have a better discussion, if we focus on the paper at hand. Which must also includes its limitations. it claims that wind is cheaper than nuclear Not now if you bothered to read it. and that PV solar will be cheaper than nuclear from 2040. It also claims that these two power sources will be the cheapest among a very wide range. It only claims that if you ignore the need for some form of backup power which is very misleading (sure, for a few percent they won't pose that much of a problem, but we need more than a few percent of carbon neutral energy). I am just trying to draw conclusions from the facts presented in this paper and from the specific ways that PV solar and landbased wind are deployed. At present they are deployed in a way which won't scale up to the level we need them to (i.e. majority of grid and able to operate without interconnections with neighbours using fossil fuels). i think that even if you wanted to, you cannot stop consumers and industry from using PV solar. you also cannot stop local communities from building wind mills. No, but OTOH they won't really want to if you're not providing subsidies for wind and solar (a few rich trendoids would put solar panels on their roof to go with their hybrid car and maybe a few companies would as well if it's still seen as the hip thing to do but large scale deployment doesn't happen without subsidy). there will be no demonstrations against the PV on your neighbours roof! Why would there need to be? Without a FiT or other subsidy there wouldn't be much reason for the neighbours to put solar panels on their roof. * cheap. (cheaper than outlined in this scenario). Nuclear is already the cheapest source that can do the job. Fossil fuels are out as they emit CO 2 (even with CCS they'll still emit a lot and it'll destroy their economics), we don't have enough rivers for hydro (or suitable geology for geothermal, hot-rock seems to be problematic and is projected to be expensive as well), we can't grow enough for biofuels to do the job (though waste biomass could provide a useful contribution), the solar they analysed with energy storage was more expensive than nuclear and they completely ignored storage costs with wind and other forms of solar. * safe. much safer than reactors are today. (fast mass penetration of nuclear needs support by the people) Nuclear is already safer than wind and fossil fuels, we don't need to make it any safer, merely let the public know that the anti-nuclear movement has lied to them. * flexible enough to earn money in a scenario with 20+% of solar and wind penetration. Better yet would be to just get rid of subsidies for wind and solar, then it won't matter (and you'll probably not get to 20% wind and solar on an isolated grid anyway, if you do it'll probably be backed up by natural gas and have very high electricity prices). |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 3, 2012 22:54:03 GMT 9.5
The feed in tarifs are needed today, because PV solar is not cheaper than other sources now. It also makes for secure investments.
this changes, when it is simply cheaper.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Aug 3, 2012 23:09:39 GMT 9.5
The feed in tarifs are needed today, because PV solar is not cheaper than other sources now. It also makes for secure investments. this changes, when it is simply cheaper. The feed in tariffs cause too many problems to be worth having (we've been over this before). Also we can't actually be sure that PV ever will become cheap enough to not need the subsidies (remember that Moore's law does not apply to solar panels) and then you need to add the backup power. Better to just admit that subsiding it was a mistake and cut our losses, that way we can use the money on more promising technologies (i.e. nuclear fission). |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Aug 4, 2012 10:39:16 GMT 9.5
proteus --- Lifting the out-take water temperature requirement is a quite poor idea. An alternate is to use evaporative cooling or (with about a 6% loss) air cooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Aug 4, 2012 16:15:00 GMT 9.5
again: the paper says, that PV solar will be cheaper than all other sources of power. "feed in tariffs" are utterly irrelevant to this.
The report also gives pretty good chances to nuclear.
So what we should discuss is this: if the report has the numbers right, can nuclear power prosper in the energy mix that these price structures suggest?
this translates into: will modern nuclear power plants be flexible enough to follow supply/demand curves down close to 0%?
|
|
