you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 24 points 5 months ago (6 children)

That's the cost of around 20 GW in wind turbines btw.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [โ€“] -2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    20GW of wind turbines would produce around 44TWh of intermittent electricity over a year, and around 880 TWh of electricity over their lifetime before needing to be replaced. (Around 20 years)

    3.2GW of nuclear (the Hinkley Point C reactor) would produce 22TWh of baseload electricity in a year and around 1320 TWh over there lifetime of the reactor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    It really doesn't make sense to compare build costs here. Nuclear uses fuel and that costs money. And you need to take the costs of dismantling the reactor after usage into your calculations. Wind turbines are much easier to recycle and you do not need to store the used wind for millenia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] -2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    You can have a grid powered by wind only, but don't expect your appliances to work 24/7.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 5 months ago

    It would be even worse to have a pure nuclear grid than it is to have a pure wind powered one. You can at least overbuild windturbines and simply shut them down if they are not needed. Nuclear power can only deliver a constant load and can't really be regulated fast enough to react to the changes in demand happening over a single day.

  • source
  • parent