5 ms·

That is a 10GW solar array, at 22% capacity factor, so comparable to 2 VVER-1200 with a $12B contract like Rooppur, also the solar panels/batteries will last 20

by hokkos 6y ago

That is a 10GW solar array, at 22% capacity factor, so comparable to 2 VVER-1200 with a $12B contract like Rooppur, also the solar panels/batteries will last 20-25 years and the VVER 60.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> also the solar panels/batteries will last 20-25 years and the VVER 60 The solar array and battery storage (all of which can be recycled today with existing recycling techniques) will be built on time, begin generating on time, and will generate no nuclear waste nor require fuel (besides sunlight) during its operating lifetime. It takes over 10 years to build a VVER-1200 reactor [1] (any fission reactor, really), if you can even get the reactor to the finish line. [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-VVER-1200-reactor-enters-commercial-operation-02031701.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-VVER-1200-reacto...
- alex_young 6y ago
  > will generate no nuclear waste Very important point, especially when we're considering costs. What are the lifetime costs associated with storing the spent fuel? In practice, the only way to get reactors built, is for the public to 100% subsidize the long term consequences.
  - devdas 6y ago
    Or recycle the fuel.
    - alex_young 6y ago
      Sure, that would be an option. Thus far even the US government is not exploring this option, mostly due to very high costs, but also due to weapons grade byproducts of most existing reprocessing methods.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > The solar array and battery storage (all of which can be recycled today with existing recycling techniques) will be built on time, begin generating on time... Steady on, that is a prediction for a project where data is light. The most comparable experience Australia has to this stuff is the Basslink which broke in 2015-16 and triggered a major energy crisis in Tasmania. And I think technically means that 50% of Australia's major undersea cables have been involved in an energy crisis. This is a major project. It is not yet clear it will be delivered on time and on budget. It is very a very exciting project nonetheless.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Maintenance and redundancy of HVDC transmission capacity is a more tractable problem than cost efficient storage & reprocessing of nuclear waste and nuclear generator decommissioning at end of service life. Basslink was mismanaged, and that's a tractable problem as well. Could this project be late? Of course. "Nuclear generator late and over budget"? No.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      This cable is 3,700 km; the current longest undersea cable is ~600 km [0]. This is nearly an order of magnitude longer than any undersea cable previously run. You've got no data this one. It has never been done before and even the people directly involved in the project can't be sure what surprises may or may not be in store as they push the boundaries of engineering practice. > Could this project be late? Of course. "Nuclear generator late and over budget"? No. This is bald-faced fabrication. I've never been confronted with quite so blatant a guess presented as a confident fact. Even arguing that "nuclear projects can't be completed to plan" is in itself a bit much - planning standards can change. Bad planning isn't a property of nuclear electricity and good planning isn't a property of undersea cables. This could easily be $50 billion down the drain and the project is still never completed. The risk is there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
- addicted 6y ago
  Also, this is the first idea of its kind. Once it gets more popular, prices will drop, as they have been doing so for solar for about 2 decades now. Nuclear, on the other hand, has a negative pricing curve. It gets increasingly more expensive with the passing of time. The only solution are completely new ideas, that to be fair are being researched and a lot of money is invested in them, but nothing has made it to scalable production yet.
coverj 6y ago
sorry, could you dumb this down a little? how does this affect the price/GW? (I'm not questioning it does, I'm saying I don't understand the rest of what you said)
- msandford 6y ago
  I think the idea is that 10GW of solar only produces on average as much power as a 2.2GW "normal" power plant. So during the best parts of the day you're getting all 10GW. At night you're getting 0GW. On cloudy days you're getting less than 10GW. If you average it all out over a year you get about the same amount of total energy output from the 10GW solar plant as you would a 2.2GW traditional power plant. So once you do that it goes from $1/watt to more like $4.50/watt. And it starts to look about the same as nuclear if in fact you can spend $5b and you get 1GW. One nice thing about nuclear is that it's super steady 1GW 24/7 vs the solar needs to have battery storage too, and those batteries aren't free.
  - coverj 6y ago
    thank you for the explanation!
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    This project has battery included as well though. Given that solar's cost trend has been going ever cheaper and nuclear's has done pretty much the opposite, solar will probably win out long term.
    - msandford 6y ago
      Oh that's my mistake then! I read the article looking for that but I didn't see it. I guess I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I do agree that over the course of the next 10-50 years renewables + storage is likely to be cheaper. What I'm not sure about is if "the grid" will be cheaper or if we'll end up seeing the renewables self-ownership spiral that causes folks to disconnect from the grid, driving prices up for everyone else on the grid, thus causing more people to disconnect, etc. When renewables are cheap and your house's usage is fairly well known (see years of smart meter historical data) then at some point it becomes economically feasible to be your own grid.

by hokkos 6y ago

That is a 10GW solar array, at 22% capacity factor, so comparable to 2 VVER-1200 with a $12B contract like Rooppur, also the solar panels/batteries will last 20-25 years and the VVER 60.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

> also the solar panels/batteries will last 20-25 years and the VVER 60 The solar array and battery storage (all of which can be recycled today with existing recycling techniques) will be built on time, begin generating on time, and will generate no nuclear waste nor require fuel (besides sunlight) during its operating lifetime. It takes over 10 years to build a VVER-1200 reactor [1] (any fission reactor, really), if you can even get the reactor to the finish line. [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-VVER-1200-reactor-enters-commercial-operation-02031701.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-VVER-1200-reacto...

alex_young 6y ago
> will generate no nuclear waste Very important point, especially when we're considering costs. What are the lifetime costs associated with storing the spent fuel? In practice, the only way to get reactors built, is for the public to 100% subsidize the long term consequences.
- devdas 6y ago
  Or recycle the fuel.
  - alex_young 6y ago
    Sure, that would be an option. Thus far even the US government is not exploring this option, mostly due to very high costs, but also due to weapons grade byproducts of most existing reprocessing methods.
roenxi 6y ago
> The solar array and battery storage (all of which can be recycled today with existing recycling techniques) will be built on time, begin generating on time... Steady on, that is a prediction for a project where data is light. The most comparable experience Australia has to this stuff is the Basslink which broke in 2015-16 and triggered a major energy crisis in Tasmania. And I think technically means that 50% of Australia's major undersea cables have been involved in an energy crisis. This is a major project. It is not yet clear it will be delivered on time and on budget. It is very a very exciting project nonetheless.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Maintenance and redundancy of HVDC transmission capacity is a more tractable problem than cost efficient storage & reprocessing of nuclear waste and nuclear generator decommissioning at end of service life. Basslink was mismanaged, and that's a tractable problem as well. Could this project be late? Of course. "Nuclear generator late and over budget"? No.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    This cable is 3,700 km; the current longest undersea cable is ~600 km [0]. This is nearly an order of magnitude longer than any undersea cable previously run. You've got no data this one. It has never been done before and even the people directly involved in the project can't be sure what surprises may or may not be in store as they push the boundaries of engineering practice. > Could this project be late? Of course. "Nuclear generator late and over budget"? No. This is bald-faced fabrication. I've never been confronted with quite so blatant a guess presented as a confident fact. Even arguing that "nuclear projects can't be completed to plan" is in itself a bit much - planning standards can change. Bad planning isn't a property of nuclear electricity and good planning isn't a property of undersea cables. This could easily be $50 billion down the drain and the project is still never completed. The risk is there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
addicted 6y ago
Also, this is the first idea of its kind. Once it gets more popular, prices will drop, as they have been doing so for solar for about 2 decades now. Nuclear, on the other hand, has a negative pricing curve. It gets increasingly more expensive with the passing of time. The only solution are completely new ideas, that to be fair are being researched and a lot of money is invested in them, but nothing has made it to scalable production yet.

coverj 6y ago

sorry, could you dumb this down a little? how does this affect the price/GW? (I'm not questioning it does, I'm saying I don't understand the rest of what you said)

msandford 6y ago
I think the idea is that 10GW of solar only produces on average as much power as a 2.2GW "normal" power plant. So during the best parts of the day you're getting all 10GW. At night you're getting 0GW. On cloudy days you're getting less than 10GW. If you average it all out over a year you get about the same amount of total energy output from the 10GW solar plant as you would a 2.2GW traditional power plant. So once you do that it goes from $1/watt to more like $4.50/watt. And it starts to look about the same as nuclear if in fact you can spend $5b and you get 1GW. One nice thing about nuclear is that it's super steady 1GW 24/7 vs the solar needs to have battery storage too, and those batteries aren't free.
- coverj 6y ago
  thank you for the explanation!
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  This project has battery included as well though. Given that solar's cost trend has been going ever cheaper and nuclear's has done pretty much the opposite, solar will probably win out long term.
  - msandford 6y ago
    Oh that's my mistake then! I read the article looking for that but I didn't see it. I guess I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I do agree that over the course of the next 10-50 years renewables + storage is likely to be cheaper. What I'm not sure about is if "the grid" will be cheaper or if we'll end up seeing the renewables self-ownership spiral that causes folks to disconnect from the grid, driving prices up for everyone else on the grid, thus causing more people to disconnect, etc. When renewables are cheap and your house's usage is fairly well known (see years of smart meter historical data) then at some point it becomes economically feasible to be your own grid.