4 ms·

The full paper from citation 1 is available here: "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States" https://escholarsh

The full paper from citation 1 is available here: "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States" https://escholarship.org/content/qt96315051/qt96315051.pdf https://escholarship.org/content/qt96315051/qt96315051.pdf If you look at Figure 2, they model different combinations of overproduction, storage, and regional aggregation (interconnection). Overproduction helps significantly. At 50% (1.5x) overproduction, the United States can supply 75% of demand with no storage and little new interconnection. At 1.5x overproduction with 12 hours of storage, it can supply 95% of demand with even less interconnection. If the AP1000 units under construction at Plant Vogtle do not go over budget any further, they will have cost $11.20 per watt to construct [1] -- $25 billion spread over 2234 MW of generating capacity. If they have a capacity factor of 93%, that's $12.04 per watt of annualized output. Utility scale solar in the United States achieves an average capacity factor of 25% as of 2018 [2] and had a median construction cost of $1.60 per watt as of 2018 [3], with costs still falling. That's $6.40 per watt of annualized output, or $9.60 with 1.5x overproduction. Wind costs are similar. Wind has higher up front construction costs but also higher capacity factors in favorable regions. Once constructed, solar and wind also have lower operation and maintenance costs per MWh generated than nuclear plants do. I was very enthusiastic about nuclear power from about 2000-2015. I still think that it's safe enough and far cleaner than fossil power. We shouldn't shut any operating reactors down prematurely. But large scale renewable projects have cut costs drastically since the turn of the millennium while new nuclear projects keep going late and over budget. The EPR and AP1000 reactors were supposed to be the standardized, affordable, predictable reactors that retired the nuclear industry's history of cost overruns and schedule blowouts. Instead they have become spectacular contemporary examples of those same old problems. [1] "Vogtle Cost Upgrade Causes Rethinking of $25B Nuclear Plant’s Future" https://www.power-eng.com/2018/08/09/vogtle-cost-upgrade-causes-rethinking-of-nuclear-plant-s-future/ https://www.power-eng.com/2018/08/09/vogtle-cost-upgrade-cau... [2] "Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels" https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... [3] "Utility Scale Solar: Empirical Trends in Project Technology, Cost, Performance, and PPA Pricing in the United States - 2019 Edition" https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl_utility_scale_solar_2019_edition_final.pdf https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl_utility_scale_s...

Manfredo_1 6y ago
By comparison, a plant of the same design as the Vogtle plant was built in China at a cost of $7.3B, yielding a cost of $3.17 per watt of output [1] - under 1/3rd of the solar cost with the required overproduction. The Vogtle plant is the first of its kind in the United States. First of a kind plants typically cost about twice as much as subsequent designs. Furthermore, you're not including the cost of storage for your estimates on solar and wind. Even 12 hours of storage represents a staggering amount of storage - that's 5.75 TWh given the US's average daily 11.5 TWh consumption. Costs per KWh are still on the order of hundreds of dollars per KWh. At $200/KWh 5.75 TWh works out to over a trillion dollars. And this is a recurring cost, as storage needs to be replaced. Hydroelectric storage is cheaper and doesn't need to be replaced, but is geographically limited. Even then, it's not that much cheaper at $100-160/KWh [2] Yes, renewables work if energy storage becomes effectively free. But energy storage is anything but free. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station 2. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/08/08/report-covers-costs-of-various-storage-technologies-including-pumped-storage-hydro/#:~:text=Pumped%20storage%20hydropower%20and%20compressed,and%20construction%20and%20commissioning%20costs https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/08/08/report-cover....
- philipkglass 6y ago
  The paper you cited shows that 1.5x overproduction can get the US to 75% of electricity from solar and wind without building any storage. Every big construction project is cheaper in China than in the US. China can build a solar farm for $0.83/watt [1], half the cost I cited up-thread for an American solar farm. But I don't think that $0.83/watt is a credible construction cost for a solar farm in the US in 2020. Nor is $3.17/watt a credible cost for constructing a nuclear plant in the US in 2020. I am weary of hearing about how the next reactor design is going to be affordable and take only 5 years to build. That's what I heard from Westinghouse and Areva/EDF when the AP1000 and EPR were still theoretical reactors. I believed it for a while. I don't believe it any more in 2020. I don't believe it about molten salt reactors, traveling wave reactors, or whatever theoretical reactor is currently cherished by Ted Talkers. I'm willing to start believing it again after a reactor design has entered commercial operation in the United States or European Union and lived up to its claims. I don't want to write off nuclear power entirely. It's much safer than fossil power, both in terms of acute human health risks and climate risks. I still couldn't advise any American utility that new nuclear plants are a fiscally prudent part of decarbonization planning for the next decade. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/china-s-biggest-subsidy-free-solar-farm-powers-up-in-liaoning https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/china-s-b...

Manfredo_1 6y ago

By comparison, a plant of the same design as the Vogtle plant was built in China at a cost of $7.3B, yielding a cost of $3.17 per watt of output [1] - under 1/3rd of the solar cost with the required overproduction. The Vogtle plant is the first of its kind in the United States. First of a kind plants typically cost about twice as much as subsequent designs. Furthermore, you're not including the cost of storage for your estimates on solar and wind. Even 12 hours of storage represents a staggering amount of storage - that's 5.75 TWh given the US's average daily 11.5 TWh consumption. Costs per KWh are still on the order of hundreds of dollars per KWh. At $200/KWh 5.75 TWh works out to over a trillion dollars. And this is a recurring cost, as storage needs to be replaced. Hydroelectric storage is cheaper and doesn't need to be replaced, but is geographically limited. Even then, it's not that much cheaper at $100-160/KWh [2] Yes, renewables work if energy storage becomes effectively free. But energy storage is anything but free. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Station 2. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/08/08/report-covers-costs-of-various-storage-technologies-including-pumped-storage-hydro/#:~:text=Pumped%20storage%20hydropower%20and%20compressed,and%20construction%20and%20commissioning%20costs https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/08/08/report-cover....

philipkglass 6y ago
The paper you cited shows that 1.5x overproduction can get the US to 75% of electricity from solar and wind without building any storage. Every big construction project is cheaper in China than in the US. China can build a solar farm for $0.83/watt [1], half the cost I cited up-thread for an American solar farm. But I don't think that $0.83/watt is a credible construction cost for a solar farm in the US in 2020. Nor is $3.17/watt a credible cost for constructing a nuclear plant in the US in 2020. I am weary of hearing about how the next reactor design is going to be affordable and take only 5 years to build. That's what I heard from Westinghouse and Areva/EDF when the AP1000 and EPR were still theoretical reactors. I believed it for a while. I don't believe it any more in 2020. I don't believe it about molten salt reactors, traveling wave reactors, or whatever theoretical reactor is currently cherished by Ted Talkers. I'm willing to start believing it again after a reactor design has entered commercial operation in the United States or European Union and lived up to its claims. I don't want to write off nuclear power entirely. It's much safer than fossil power, both in terms of acute human health risks and climate risks. I still couldn't advise any American utility that new nuclear plants are a fiscally prudent part of decarbonization planning for the next decade. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/china-s-biggest-subsidy-free-solar-farm-powers-up-in-liaoning https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/china-s-b...