2 ms·
"You're looking at capital cost" Yes, as is the Google model. They suggest that if a 24/7 carbon-free energy source could be built at a capital cost of $2200/k
by Reason077 9y ago
"You're looking at capital cost"
Yes, as is the Google model. They suggest that if a 24/7 carbon-free energy source could be built at a capital cost of $2200/kW, then it would displace all carbon emissions within 27 years.
My point is that capital cost of nuclear is currently far above that level, which is why little nuclear is getting built (in most of the world) today.
Also, the operating cost of nuclear is high compared to most renewables! Particularly when you account for substantial end-of-life decommissioning costs, and the cost of secure waste storage far into the future.
(The decommissioning costs for the UK's MOX reactors is close to $100 billion)
- DennisP 9y agoActually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). Their paper's abstract does say: "DOSCOE shows that to cost-effectively remove the last 10-20% of fossil fuels requires a moderate price on carbon and either low-cost nuclear power or carbon capture and sequestration. Alternatively, a hypothetical zero-carbon source needs to have a net present cost less than $2200/kW (with a 100% capacity factor) to displace existing fossil-fuel plants."
- Reason077 9y agoActually it's not, the model optimizes for the minimum overall LCOE (i.e. kWh cost). You're right. I meant that the Google abstract: the $2200/kW figure referring to capital cost. Interestingly, the UK has enormous potential for tidal lagoon energy. These developers claim that it would be the cheapest energy of all new UK power projects: http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/ http://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/