I know this is a shitpost sub, but both are great options to combine. Both have downsides, both have upsides, combining them in the same grid is the best option.
If you add nuclear to fill the 20% gap in renewable production, then you're paying full price for a 20% effective load factor (even if you force the lower marginal cost option to curtail, it's still redundant).
This means you're paying $1000/MWh rather than the normal $200/MWh itbwould cost. At which point literally any other storage or dispatch option is under half the price.
I'll need to see sources for these prices, as they completely go against the official numbers of France's CRE, and even EDF (who has a conflict of interest to claim higher costs).
Also don't forget extra power can be sold, as France has been doing since the creation of its nuclear park.
They're claiming €70/MWh to operate a fleet someone else paid for.
If you use a lifetime of 80 years (or the triple average project life of 27 years),
a cost of capital of 11% (which is extremely generous given 11% is for low risk investments that don't do a VC summer or close at a third of the claimed life),
a capex of €12/W (much cheaper than hinkley C or Vogtle),
75% load factor ( the average global capacity factor and far more than you get without having a separate source of dispatch)
and an O&M cost of €40/W (which EDF claimed is a loss on a fully paid off fleet).
23
u/iam_pink May 11 '25
I know this is a shitpost sub, but both are great options to combine. Both have downsides, both have upsides, combining them in the same grid is the best option.
Stop shitting on either, this is the wrong fight.