5 ms·
If solar costs less than a third what nuclear does (which is where we're headed, we're already down to half), why do you need nuclear base load? Why not just do
by beat 7y ago
If solar costs less than a third what nuclear does (which is where we're headed, we're already down to half), why do you need nuclear base load? Why not just do this gas conversion?
Nuclear is basically dead right now because of cost. The biggest factor in nuclear cost is financing and interest rates, which are very risk-sensitive. When existing nuclear plants are shutting down right now, because they're losing major customers to cheaper wind power, what happens to the risk on 50 year investment scales? Risk goes up, interest goes up, and plant cost skyrockets. So the very fact that nuclear costs more than renewables makes nuclear even more expensive than before.
- mlyle 7y ago> If solar costs less than a third what nuclear does (which is where we're headed, we're already down to half), Because power to gas to power delivers a fraction of the input power, and has a bunch of cost itself-- it isn't free.
- beat 7y agoI'm not saying it's free. Sheesh. I'm saying that there's some point on the price curve where it becomes cheaper than nuclear, even for base load. Now, that point may never happen. Or maybe it's already happened, and will be scaled out over the next couple of decades. The cost of PV solar has dropped over 80% in the past decade, and we don't know what the bottom is yet.
- mlyle 7y agoI am saying that even if pv gets cheap enough that the input power through 1/3rd efficiency is the same as nuclear... power to gas costs a lot IN ADDITION to the input power. And then burning that gas in a power plant costs something, too. So reaching parity seems difficult.
- pfdietz 7y agoThe cost of electrolyzers has also fallen dramatically. On the other side, gas turbines are incredibly cheap. A simple cycle gas turbine plant costs as little as $400/kW, vs. $10,000/kW for a nuclear plant. It's this huge cost advantage of combustion turbines that is making natural gas such a killer competitor these days (along with fracking).
- mlyle 7y agoSure, but the point I am making is: having the input power alone cost the same as something else is not the same as reaching cost parity with it. Because one must consider all expenses, not just the expense of the input power.
- pfdietz 7y agoSolar has not reached cost parity with nuclear. It has blown through cost parity. Solar and wind are 3-4x cheaper than nuclear, on a levelized basis (depending on location). This gives them both plenty of space to implement storage, curtailment, transmission, and/or demand management and still beat nuclear.
- mlyle 7y agoPerson A says if solar is 1/3rd the cost of nuclear, and energy-to-gas-to-energy is 1/3rd efficient, it should be cost-neutral with nuclear. > If solar costs less than a third what nuclear does (which is where we're headed, we're already down to half), why do you need nuclear base load? Why not just do this gas conversion? I objected, because energy to gas costs money, and gas to energy uses money. You have to count the other costs before you can assume cost parity. Simple enough?
- pfdietz 7y agoIt is cost neutral with nuclear during those occasional times when you're burning the gas to make power. It blows the socks off nuclear at other times. But nuclear needs to get its high prices 24/7 to make economic sense. Otherwise, the cost of that 20% capacity factor nuclear is going to balloon even higher. Simple enough?