Natural gas is perfect for peaking as it can spin up quickly and costs little when not burning fuel. Natural gas especially newer more efficient installations will probably be profitable for a while because as renewables become a bigger proportion of generation there will be less GWh delivered from gas but at higher prices. Or to reverse that, if you need the natural gas to be available, you have to pay what it costs to keep it around, regardless if that's for 10%, 1%, or 0.1% of the time that it's actually generating. But as that number drops - because of storage and overcapacity of renewables - you reduce emissions even if you don't reduce cost.
Fans of nuclear claim that sceptics are either radical leftists who want to reduce energy use, or anti-environmentalists don't care about emissions. But I see the pragmatic, diversified way of drastically cutting emissions being renewables + storage + gas turbines.
The problem with operating a natural gas plant only 0.1% of the time is that you have to cover its fixed costs over whatever time it is run, and if that's only 0.1% of the time then the fixed contribution per kWh becomes enormous. Worse, people like to point out that a high proportion of the cost of a natural gas plant is fuel, but the fuel cost also includes fixed costs. If you're using only 0.1% as much natural gas at scale then you have to recover the costs of all the pipelines and other infrastructure over 0.1% as much sales volume.
You end up paying a significant fraction of the cost of having the generating plants producing power 100% of the time, but only get power 0.1% of the time.
The main advantage of not running them all the time is that then you're not emitting CO2, but nuclear plants have that advantage even when you do run them all the time.
If you build so much solar that rates are consistently zero during the day then solar is unprofitable. But if rates are normally non-zero during the day then generating power generates revenue -- and then your alternative generation method gives you the additional benefit of needing less solar, which isn't free even if it's cheap.
And, of course, the main benefit is at night, because solar is cheap but solar + storage is significantly more expensive, so you get to generate all night -- and get the higher rates from generating at night -- without emitting CO2.
The business plan then says something like "we run nuclear 24/7 and in the pasts it's been ok from a cost perspective. Now we actually only get money half of the time but trust me this is economically viable"?
With batteries there is no "too much solar", only too few batteries because they compliment each other so good and batteries are now at a price where adding it to solar is a no brainer economically. Building nuclear now would take 10+ years and then we proabably don't need it anymore. Why take the risk if the new state of the art works?
You're assuming they would only get half as much money, but you're not considering how generation volatility affects prices.
Suppose you have 1000 MW (constant) of nuclear and 1000 MW (daytime average) of solar. Therefore on the average day you're getting 2 GW total. The daytime price on that day is $0.04/kWh, which is just enough to make solar viable. If every day is like this, solar is doing fine.
But then there's a day when it's extra sunny. Solar is generating not 1000 MW but 1800 MW. Is that good for solar's profitability? No, it's bad, because that means there is oversupply and the price per kWh is zero. Nobody is making any money that day. Solar generated 1800 MW for 12 hours and got zero return. Solar's average is now down to $0.014/kWh. That's below sustainability. Oops. Nuclear also got zero return that day, but only generated at 1000 MW, so its average wasn't negatively affected by as much.
Then, another day, it's extra cloudy. Solar only generates at 300 MW. It's a supply emergency and the wholesale price per kWh rises to $0.28/kWh. Finally everyone is given an opportunity to bring up their average. So solar generates 300 MW for 12 hours and nuclear generates 1000 MW for the same 12 hours and they each get $0.28/kWh. At this point solar's average is back up to $0.04/kWh, which is its breakeven. Meanwhile the nuclear plant's average -- during only the daytime hours -- is $0.1067/kWh.
Then you have the nighttime hours. To play here solar needs storage. Storage is something like $0.14-$0.50/kWh by itself. If you charge it with solar, you're up to $0.18+/kWh. But that's on average again. On the day it was extra sunny, the batteries were already completely full, so that night the price didn't stay at zero and the nuclear plant made some money. On the day it was extra cloudy, the batteries got low, and then the nighttime price wasn't just $0.18/kWh, it was much higher.
Then, once in a while, it's cloudy for a whole week. The batteries aren't just low but completely drained, even before sunset. Solar + batteries can't address this case at all because an entire week's worth of battery storage is prohibitively expensive for something that only happens once a year or so. The nighttime price that week -- because of the volatility created by solar -- goes through the roof. Nuclear plants gets all of that money while the solar plants get none of it, because they're the only available source of electricity.
The economics aren't the same as before because now the prices fluctuate all over the place. But that only means that a generation source that supplies power all the time can make up for the times when rates are low because there is oversupply during the times when the rates are much higher because there is undersupply. Whereas the power source causing the supply fluctuations can't, because its ability to supply power inversely correlates with the price.
"Storage is something like $0.14-$0.50/kWh by itself"
LFP at the cell level is below $100/kWh, 5000 cycles means $0.02/kWh out of the cell (maximum since after 5000 cycles battery is still at 80% capacity so the real price is even lower).
Current LFP cell price look more like $50/kWh these days and still going down...
Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
> LFP at the cell level is below $100/kWh, 5000 cycles means $0.02/kWh out of the cell (maximum since after 5000 cycles battery is still at 80% capacity so the real price is even lower).
The cells are by far not the only cost. You also have land, installation, operations, taxes, insurance, etc. Most of these costs also have to be paid upfront even though you won't actually hit 5000 cycles for more than a decade, so then you have to add time value of money.
It's like saying "it's really cheap to own a home, just get lumber in bulk for like $100/unit and it'll last for decades."
> Also about near $0 or below $0 prices, they exist only because we don't currently signal those prices to consumers. Anyone with electric car (parked 95% of the time) or batteries at home or business would charge them at $0.01-0.05/kWh no question asked and price would never go to zero or negative.
That's what happens for the first few hours of peak generation, but then the batteries are all fully charged and you're still generating in excess of demand because it's still a week with clear skies in the summertime.
Also, a lot of reason for the zero or negative prices is that you have more generation at that time than there is transmission capacity in the grid. You can't sell it to someone because you don't have the capacity to deliver it, and expanding the grid for something that only happens a fraction of the time (and is only relevant when the price is low) isn't cost effective.
And actual zero isn't really the point anyway. If the wholesale price is $0.01/kWh instead of actual zero on the day when solar is at peak generation, it's still selling below cost on the days when it has the most to sell, and only getting a fraction of the premium during supply shortfalls because the shortfalls are caused by solar being unable to supply more power then.
> The on-site amenities are pretty good, but its central London, you’re not far from literally anything you could imagine or desire.
This is totally inaccurate. It's the business district. If not for the Barbican, the nearest serious art gallery, repertory cinema, music auditorium, are all around half an hour away.
Half an hour is pretty much nothing in London. But if you factor public transport or cycling into the mix then there are loads of places you can get to in less than half an hour. For example about 10 minutes cycle to the south you have the Southbank Centre, BFI, Tate Modern etc.
No single big name (although the Guildhall gallery is underrated) but there are a lot of trendy small galleries in the Old Street/Shoreditch area. Sadler's Wells Theatre is extremely reputable and just up the road. There's an Everyman in broad street and two full-on arts cinemas by Shoreditch High Street. That whole area has changed a lot over the last 20 years or so.
There are many cultural centers in the West End, Kensington, and boroughs outside the City, but none of them are 10 or 15 minutes from the Barbican center (hence your not being able to name a single one).
There is a theatre at Tottenham Court Road. It is over 30 minutes away from the Barbican centre by foot (but about 10 minutes by Elizabeth line).
The nearest major art gallery to TCR is not in Soho, but 15-20 minutes from Tottenham Court Road. There are two other major galleries closer to the Barbican than anywhere near Soho. Both are at least 25 minutes by foot and at least 25 minutes by tube.
There isn't an auditorium in Soho, unless you can name one? St-Martin-in-the-fields is no closer than the National portrait gallery, 20 min by foot or 15 by bus from TCR. Easily 25-30 minutes from the Barbican centre by any means of transport.
Likewise there are several repertory cinemas in Soho but none of them are 0 minutes from Tottenham Court Road.
Your claim of 15 minutes by foot was completely laughable. My claim of around 30 minutes in each case was accurate.
The problem isn’t naming them, the problem is you shifting goal posts by saying “major”. Which could just as easily exclude the amenities at the Barbican too, given “major” is an entirely subjective term.
Also I never claimed 15 minutes by foot. And given how good public transport is in London, it’s a silly argument for you to make that we can only talk about out walking somewhere.
Plus even if we were just talking about walking, as myself and others have pointed out to you, half an hour isn’t far to walk in central London. Londoners do it all the time.
There really isn’t any need for you to be taking such an aggressive tone here.
Name any art gallery which you think is a major art gallery, ie of comparable or greater size and prestige to the Barbican art gallery and is 15 minutes from the Barbican center, including by public transport?
You can't, because there isn't one.
You made an incorrect statement, and now you're defending it, but without providing any example at all of what you are claiming exists. So it's a little bit cheeky to claim that I am shifting the goal posts.
But if you really care about art then you aren’t going to limit yourself to “major” art galleries (again, speaking from experience here).
This whole argument is absurd. I dont understand why you find it so controversial to claim that a flat in central London would be near pretty much anything you could want. Business district or not, I stand by my statement. If it weren’t true then people wouldn’t pay the premium to live in central London.
Tate Modern (yes, it is definitely a major art gallery) is around half an hour from the Barbican center by foot, and around half an hour from the Barbican center by public transport.
Read my comment again:
> It's the business district. If not for the Barbican, the nearest serious art gallery, repertory cinema, music auditorium, are all around half an hour away.
Your single 'counter-example' is a serious art gallery, which is around half an hour away...
Your strident tone isn't doing your position any favours.
You're a lot closer to everything in the Barbican than you are in Croydon or Enfield or Acton or Stratford.
London is big. The City is close enough to the centre that it is central, compared to most of London.
(Personally I think the Barbican is ugly, and I didn't like moving around in it, with long walkways forcing unnatural navigation. It only works, in so far as it works, due to a degree of elite mindshare capture keeping it owned and occupied by the wealthy. Put the same idea in Stratford and come back to somewhere far less pleasant in 20 years.)
But honestly, you’re the first Londoner I’ve spoken to who considers 30 minutes by foot a long way away. Even by London standards, that’s close. For suburban dwellers, 30 minutes by foot wouldn’t even get them close to their nearest art gallery (and I don’t even mean “major” galleries either).
And your insistence on limiting things by “major” instances is odd. London has a strong culture of smaller independent amenities. Many of which are a lot closer than Soho and Southbank.
This is honestly the first time I’ve ever heard anyone complain about a zone one apartment being a long way from stuff.
YouTube spent years showing children damaging content through an algo until the parental boycott became so bad that they had to do something, worried that a generation was going to grow up not addicted to their content.
I pay for cloud storage, not from Google. I'm happy to pay for this, and I use enough storage there I would be paying Google if I used their storage. Almost every time I go into the Photos all on my phone, there's a dark pattern which tries to get me to turn on backups. If I do this, app my personal photos will be uploaded to Google's servers, possibly forever, possibly to be used in ways I have never consented to. Then the UI will change so that I'm never presented with an explicit choice of turning this off, ever again, and will have to search for how to do it. I don't love the internet Google created.
But if Google weren't a monopoly, phone manufacturers could choose to bundle different collections of apps made by different people on to their hardware, rather than having to get it all from Google. This would also mean that phone users could be given a genuine choice about their privacy, rather than have dark patterns to force them to give up most of it, because it's the Android business model.
You can't have the Play app store on your Android phone unless you accept to install Youtube, Google Maps, Google Drive and Google Photos. This is clearly anti-competitive.
That line of reasoning didn’t work out to well against Microsoft. No there was no browser choice screen in the US and no forced unbundling.
If enough users choose Chrome willingly on the desktop to make it the majority, do you think unbundling is going to help some scrappy startup hosting video at scale with all of the associated cost is going to arise instead of everyone just downloading YouTube?
Google Drive has plenty of competition and it’s not even the majority.
Your two arguments contradict each other. Bundling YouTube is fine because there are no viable competitors. Bundling Google Drive is fine because there are plenty of viable competitors.
If Chrome was able to compete in a level playing field, then so should the other Google services. You seem to believe that Google makes an effort to tie together its services because they are stupid and don't realise they are not gaining anything from it.
Yes, and Gmail hasn't improved for decades. Why not? Because Google is a monopoly actor and does not need to compete.
Example: you can't create a new email label in the Android client. You have to log on to email in a browser and do it there. This was true when smartphones were a niche way of connecting to email, and it's still true today.
reply