4 ms·

They mentioned this: > augmented with utility-scale storage that currently runs about $200M/GWh and will be at least 2x cheaper by 2030 So storage is a cost,

by lkbm 6y ago

They mentioned this: > augmented with utility-scale storage that currently runs about $200M/GWh and will be at least 2x cheaper by 2030 So storage is a cost, but seems like a relatively small cost, especially if the stated trends continue.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I can see why the nuclear is competitive. Here in California, from looking at the states graphs it seems that about 90% of our renewables are being generated in a 12 hour window[0] (a window which unfortunately ends at the time when demand starts to build up to its peak). If you want to even out 50GWh of renewables across 24 hours, you'd be spending billions of dollars on storage and you'd still be burning fossil fuels on cloudy and/or low-wind days. Nuclear reduces storage needs, as well as the bursty-ness of renewables. I can see how they'd be complementary [0]: Just a guesstimate from eyeballing this graph, might be off http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html
- lkbm 6y ago
  That's a nifty site. Thanks for the link. Eyeballing the graphs, looks like we need maybe an average of 25GW for the 16 hours of low solar output, for 400GWh. If batteries don't increase in price and the grandparent's prices are right ($200M/GWh, ignoring the prediction of it halving), that's $80Bn of storage. The proposed mininuclear is a bit over £4Bn[0]/GW, so £100Bn to get 25GW. Seems like storage wins if you don't consider cloudy days (bad for solar), maintenance/operations cost (I assume much lower for batteries+solar than nuclear), or replacement times. (I'm guessing nuclear plants last longer than storage.) I'm a little surprised how little wind is being used in California. It's worth noting that wind actually picks up slightly when solar drops, but not as severely, judging from the graphs. [0] I hate that some of our units are £ and some $, but I'm going to pretend they're equal. That unfairly helps nuclear in the calculations.

by lkbm 6y ago

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I can see why the nuclear is competitive. Here in California, from looking at the states graphs it seems that about 90% of our renewables are being generated in a 12 hour window[0] (a window which unfortunately ends at the time when demand starts to build up to its peak). If you want to even out 50GWh of renewables across 24 hours, you'd be spending billions of dollars on storage and you'd still be burning fossil fuels on cloudy and/or low-wind days. Nuclear reduces storage needs, as well as the bursty-ness of renewables. I can see how they'd be complementary [0]: Just a guesstimate from eyeballing this graph, might be off http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html

lkbm 6y ago
That's a nifty site. Thanks for the link. Eyeballing the graphs, looks like we need maybe an average of 25GW for the 16 hours of low solar output, for 400GWh. If batteries don't increase in price and the grandparent's prices are right ($200M/GWh, ignoring the prediction of it halving), that's $80Bn of storage. The proposed mininuclear is a bit over £4Bn[0]/GW, so £100Bn to get 25GW. Seems like storage wins if you don't consider cloudy days (bad for solar), maintenance/operations cost (I assume much lower for batteries+solar than nuclear), or replacement times. (I'm guessing nuclear plants last longer than storage.) I'm a little surprised how little wind is being used in California. It's worth noting that wind actually picks up slightly when solar drops, but not as severely, judging from the graphs. [0] I hate that some of our units are £ and some $, but I'm going to pretend they're equal. That unfairly helps nuclear in the calculations.