3 ms·

I'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 poi

• mlyle 7y ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Sure, 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 ago
        Solar 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 ago
          Person 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 ago
            It 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?
            • mlyle 7y ago
              We are talking in two different subthreads at the same time. Stick to the argument here. It is very simple. Power->gas->power requires capital costs and operating costs. Even if PV is 3x as cost-efficient as nuclear, PV power divided by three and then paying for p->g->p is not cost neutral. P->g->p has to pay for its costs over the narrow times where it is actually filling in. The rest of the time it is a dead weight.
              • pfdietz 7y ago
                Ah, but the capital cost of p->g->p is very low, per kW of capacity, compared to a nuclear plant. Like, an order of magnitude cheaper. Combustion turbines are so damned cheap compared to nuclear plants. (The p->g part can be spread out over longer time periods, with the gas stored underground.)
                • mlyle 7y ago
                  Capital cost is around $3000/kilowatt of output for p->g. This is hardly negligible-- indeed it's nearly half the capital cost of nuclear, and doesn't include the costs of storage, the cheap combustion turbine, or the infrastructure to produce the extra input power. Duty cycle for this infrastructure is going to suck, too, because presumably we're not going to be overproducing all the time. Also, burning the fuel may not be so cheap. Best way to improve the capital cost of p->g relative to actual work done is to do combined heat and power... but this adds its own complexities and costs. It may prove to be an important piece of the mix, but again: diversity is good.