Jan 12, 2017 12:00
stress,
behaviour,
work,
fraud,
language,
taiwan,
statistics,
pratchett,
spiders,
snow,
predictions,
africa,
life,
quotes,
economics,
pollution,
usa,
fox,
advice,
globalwarming,
superheroes,
debt,
sex,
books,
architecture,
children,
ocean,
links,
ohforfuckssake,
technology,
loans,
uk,
wales,
funny,
shopping,
diet,
aggression,
wifi,
dogs,
coffee,
speech,
antarctic,
learning,
library,
credit,
health,
crabs,
psychology,
power,
viaswampers,
medicine,
politics
I'm not sure there is much scope for them to get cheaper. I agree with the suggestions in the article that as we've been building breakwaters and hydro turbines for a long time (since Roman times and for more than 100 years) we're unlikely to find much in the way of learning curve effects or economies of scale or specialisation. I think if they are pitching for a price of £90 / MWH they won't be cost competative with renewables plus batteries by the time they are built.
In other news I am quite interested in China's pebble bed reactor which they appear to want to use to replace the coal burner on their fleet of traditional coal-fired power stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR-10
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600757/china-could-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/
Unlike EDF China appears to understand that the price of energy is less than £100 / MWH not more than that. I still think that they will struggle to get cheaper quicker than solar PV and struggle to get built and deployed quickly enough but it's nice to see something else in the race.
Reply
Leave a comment