> electricity renewables are cheaper than nuclear

Are they still if you include storage, vs. nuclear's continuous generation?

Continue generation is great if you have continues demand. The U.K. does not have that (especially if you include heating and travel which is currently mainly provided by gas)

▲

jayflux 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s quite an odd statement to make.

The UK certainly does have continuous demand, our overall energy demand has rarely fallen below 25GW in the past couple of years. Right now gas makes up for much of that, the goal here is to replace gas with nuclear, using gas as baseload generation isn’t wise long term.

Source: https://grid.iamkate.com/

▲

gorgoiler an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve been a huge fan of Morley’s 12-bit color palette since I first saw it:

https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/

I had completely overlooked that it was for this power-usage visualization.

▲

hdgvhicv 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Our demand varies from 25 to 45GW

Saying “nuclear can handle the easy part” doesn’t help. You still need 20GW of extra capacity to cope.

It’s like saying “wind can handle the bulk of the capacity you just need to top up the rest”.

▲

jayflux 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m sorry I struggle to understand your comment, but I’ll have a go.

> Saying “nuclear can handle the easy part” doesn’t help.

That’s literally how baseload works, look at France’s energy mix for an example, they have nuclear handle the bulk of their demand (at least the very minimum it will ever be) and renewables + transfers handle the rest, if renewables goes up they export it or lower their nuclear output (yes, their nuclear output can be modulated).

> You still need 20GW of extra capacity to cope

The goal isn’t to replace the entire energy mix with Nuclear, the goal is to add enough nuclear in the mix so that we don’t need gas being generating all year round (gas sets the price in the merit order so we don’t want it on 24/7). If you added just 6GW of nuclear you’d be achieving that on some days.

	▲	stevesimmons 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> gas sets the price in the merit order so we don’t want it on 24/7 I never quite understood the logic for this. Sure, if you overlay a simple upward sloping cost curve on a downward sloping demand-price curve, the market-clearing price is where they intersect, and that in practice much of the time is a gas generator. But there must be a million other aspects that can affect what price needs to be paid to secure the capacity below that point. Surely only part of the total area under that market-clearing price needs to accrue to the generators? And if generators are getting windfall profits, can't the market rules be adjusted so more of it can given to the consumers in the form of lower energy prices? Can someone explain this? Maybe that is what actually happens, just it is too complex for the mass media.
	▲	hdgvhicv 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So if wind produced 35gw and nuclear 20 and demand is 30GW, you just say “well nuclear is the base load and wind needs to be curtailed” What about when nuclear produces 20GW and wind 5 and demand is 35gw Of nuclear costs the same as wind then why not have nuclear produce the full demand?