4 ms·

Again, you're confusing MWh with MW. MWh is not something you can install, it's something you produce over time. Also, I don't know how but you end up with the

Again, you're confusing MWh with MW. MWh is not something you can install, it's something you produce over time. Also, I don't know how but you end up with the ridiculous number of 18 cents per 2 Watts? That is crazy, the module alone is 20 cents per Watt. I think you should understand first what MW and MWh mean. One costs 1 million dollars to install, and then will proceed to produce 8000 hours per year divided by the capacity factor. So about 2000 hours * 1 MW = 2000 MWh per year. At a price of 5 cents per KWh, you can sell that for 100k dollars.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
I figured out my mistake, I was assuming that MWh is an annual figure. MWh is a much better figure than W when comparing disparate technologies because it takes into account capacity factor, operating costs and disposal costs as well as installation costs. It also relates directly to the price consumer pays. It's also why all the links are pricing in MWh. So 1 watt of PV with a capacity factor of 33% and 30 years of lifetime would generate 86.7KWh. $20/MWh is thus $1.80/W total for installation, operating and decomissioning costs. If China can build 150 reactors for $500 billion when it costs the west over $20B to build a single one, then yes nuclear is cheaper than solar.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  MWh makes solar look very good because they can pump cheap energy during the day, but none during the night. 33% capacity factor is unheard of, US is around 25%, and even that is higher than most of the world. Not even excellent desert states in the US don't break 30% https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019796/solar-pv-capacity-factors-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019796/solar-pv-capacit... Currently the West has massively inflated prices because there is no economy of scale. A planned economy + economies of scale might just pull it off. Especially if they're going to build the nuclear plants in factories, like the west is trying to do now. We'll see. I'm personally rooting for all the technologies, except coal. Even gas is good as a temporary measure - it allows us to get off coal faster.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    CSP solar in California is 33%. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343184782_Capacity_factors_of_solar_photovoltaic_energy_facilities_in_California_annual_mean_and_variability https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343184782_Capacity_...
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    My main objection against nuclear is the time scale. I'll happily endorse any nuclear project that comes online before 2030. Even if solar/wind is more expensive than nuclear (and I don't believe they are unless the 150 plants for $500B number is achievable), it's still better simply because they can come online quickly. People significantly overestimate the amount of batteries that a solar+battery project requires. All you need is enough batteries to handle a single night (and demand is low at night), and enough overcapacity to handle a moderately cloudy day. That'll get you above nuclear's 90% capacity factor. Those batteries only add $20/MWh to the project. https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas-in-the-usa/ https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-...

bryanlarsen 5y ago

I figured out my mistake, I was assuming that MWh is an annual figure. MWh is a much better figure than W when comparing disparate technologies because it takes into account capacity factor, operating costs and disposal costs as well as installation costs. It also relates directly to the price consumer pays. It's also why all the links are pricing in MWh. So 1 watt of PV with a capacity factor of 33% and 30 years of lifetime would generate 86.7KWh. $20/MWh is thus $1.80/W total for installation, operating and decomissioning costs. If China can build 150 reactors for $500 billion when it costs the west over $20B to build a single one, then yes nuclear is cheaper than solar.

flavius29663 5y ago
MWh makes solar look very good because they can pump cheap energy during the day, but none during the night. 33% capacity factor is unheard of, US is around 25%, and even that is higher than most of the world. Not even excellent desert states in the US don't break 30% https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019796/solar-pv-capacity-factors-us-by-state/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1019796/solar-pv-capacit... Currently the West has massively inflated prices because there is no economy of scale. A planned economy + economies of scale might just pull it off. Especially if they're going to build the nuclear plants in factories, like the west is trying to do now. We'll see. I'm personally rooting for all the technologies, except coal. Even gas is good as a temporary measure - it allows us to get off coal faster.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  CSP solar in California is 33%. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343184782_Capacity_factors_of_solar_photovoltaic_energy_facilities_in_California_annual_mean_and_variability https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343184782_Capacity_...
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  My main objection against nuclear is the time scale. I'll happily endorse any nuclear project that comes online before 2030. Even if solar/wind is more expensive than nuclear (and I don't believe they are unless the 150 plants for $500B number is achievable), it's still better simply because they can come online quickly. People significantly overestimate the amount of batteries that a solar+battery project requires. All you need is enough batteries to handle a single night (and demand is low at night), and enough overcapacity to handle a moderately cloudy day. That'll get you above nuclear's 90% capacity factor. Those batteries only add $20/MWh to the project. https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-breaking-down-low-cost-solar-plus-storage-ppas-in-the-usa/ https://www.energy-storage.news/battery-storage-at-us20-mwh-...