3 ms·

There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?

by jankiel 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago
A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.
- archgoon 10y ago
  > there isn't time There's even less time when you're taking existing power capacity offline.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. Build. more. renewables. faster.
    - archgoon 10y ago
      Which means they could have put out twice the clean energy in ten years time if they didn't have to shut down the nuclear plant.
    - fennecfoxen 10y ago
      > And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. And I'm sure that's exactly what the regulators and the politicians controlling the regulators want to hear. Smart business sense, given the political climate in a state that sees its insurance commissioner trying to strongarm insurance companies doing business in the state into not owning anything related to coal.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  The calculations regarding the relative feasibility of energy sources include the decline in expense. Assuming molten salt energy storage progresses, storage costs decline steeply. Even including these (very optimistic) projected price declines, solar and wind energy are not enough. Hence why the very same leading climate scientists who first alerted the world of global warming wrote a detailed public statement pleading for use of nuclear power, and stating that renewables are insufficient to stop climate change. To believe that all four of them, PhDs hailing from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country with decades of experience, failed to include projected price declines is simply incorrect.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Well, the drop in price of solar has been pretty unprecedented. I'm not quite sure what happened, but it's been a pretty sharp drop, which isn't really seen in other energy sources. Like a 90% cut in prices in the past 20-odd years. http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive-solar.png http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive... (This is log scale)
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-solar-and-wind-got-so-cheap-so-fast/418257/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-so...

There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?

by jankiel 10y ago

There's a big gap between potential and making it work risht now. How much would that cost?

A nuclear plant costs ~$9 billion (before cost overruns) per generating unit, and ~10 years to build. Whether that's less or more than solar isn't the point; there isn't time, and no one will finance one. Utility scale solar is ~$1/kw, and can be operational in a fraction of the time. Importantly, costs continue to decline. Planned utility scale generation coming online in the next year: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.... (note its almost exclusively solar and wind) Battery storage costs are falling as fast, if not faster, than renewables did: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_really_cost_lazard_weighs_in http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2016_01_21_how_much_does_storage_re... http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-about-ready-to-take-off/407096/ http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-battery-storage-is-just-... There is no other option other than wind and solar, full speed ahead.

archgoon 10y ago
> there isn't time There's even less time when you're taking existing power capacity offline.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. Build. more. renewables. faster.
  - archgoon 10y ago
    Which means they could have put out twice the clean energy in ten years time if they didn't have to shut down the nuclear plant.
  - fennecfoxen 10y ago
    > And yet, PG&E has said they'll be able to replace the displaced generation with renewables, energy efficiency, and battery storage. And I'm sure that's exactly what the regulators and the politicians controlling the regulators want to hear. Smart business sense, given the political climate in a state that sees its insurance commissioner trying to strongarm insurance companies doing business in the state into not owning anything related to coal.
s_q_b 10y ago
The calculations regarding the relative feasibility of energy sources include the decline in expense. Assuming molten salt energy storage progresses, storage costs decline steeply. Even including these (very optimistic) projected price declines, solar and wind energy are not enough. Hence why the very same leading climate scientists who first alerted the world of global warming wrote a detailed public statement pleading for use of nuclear power, and stating that renewables are insufficient to stop climate change. To believe that all four of them, PhDs hailing from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country with decades of experience, failed to include projected price declines is simply incorrect.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rtpg 10y ago
  Well, the drop in price of solar has been pretty unprecedented. I'm not quite sure what happened, but it's been a pretty sharp drop, which isn't really seen in other energy sources. Like a 90% cut in prices in the past 20-odd years. http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive-solar.png http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive... (This is log scale)
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-solar-and-wind-got-so-cheap-so-fast/418257/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-so...