4 ms·

I did consider it, I work in the energy industry after all. But even your equation over simplifies things considerably. Things like cost over time (batteries a

I did consider it, I work in the energy industry after all. But even your equation over simplifies things considerably. Things like cost over time (batteries are likely to get much cheaper in the future, whereas solar and nuclear are not likely to decrease much), and deployment characteristics (much easier/cheaper for the grid to add small incremental solar+wind+storage deployments over time then to add large individual nuclear deployments once or twice a decade) I am fully supportive of using whatever technology that gets us to a zero carbon grid as quickly as possible. And right now the most advanced research in this area is suggesting that renewables + storage is our best bet.

pfdietz 5y ago
Why is solar not likely to decrease much? If the historical experience curve continues there's still room for a factor of several decrease in its cost.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It would not be surprising if costs for storage fell much more than photovoltaics, over the next decade, and for the same reasons as for the latter.
  - godelski 5y ago
    In fact, cost of storage is expected to fall over the next following decade or two. Problem is, we needed to start solving climate 50 years ago. We don't have time to wait another 10 to 20 years. We now are forced to go the unoptimal route and more expensive.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Storage costs are plummeting already. But because generating capacity is now so cheap, we can afford expensive storage construction. Storage typically has very low operating cost, but is just now expensive to build. So, it will be cheaper to build storage later, but anything built this year will continue operating.
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  Solar is already dirt cheap, and there is not much more juice left to squeeze. We might get a little bit more cost reduction over the next decade, maybe somewhere in the 10-50% range, but this isn't much compared the multiple hundreds of % that we saw over the last two decades. Also, at least in the short term, we are seeing some increases in cost due to supply chain and inflation issues.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    You're just repeating the assertion there. What fundamentally prevents the cost of solar from falling even more? This cost has to come from some irreducible input. Materials? Energy? Labor? Which is it? As for cost of delivered energy from solar, there is a final reduction that can still be obtained even if the cost/watt were to plateau immediately: extension of the lifespan of the system. This could be obtained by, over time, identifying and addressing all the degradation modes of the components of the system.
    - qqqwerty 5y ago
      Predicting the future is hard. You are asking a question that pretty much no one has a good answer to (at least no one who is being honest). Are permitting fees an irreducible input? Probably not. Are lawyers fees an irreducible input? Maybe but unlikely. Are project developer salaries an irreducible input? I have no idea. But I also think you are mis-applying a mental model about the cost of manufactured goods to the cost of solar plant development. In a competitive free market, the cost of manufactured goods should eventually be reduced to a sum of their inputs plus any profit. But solar development is inherently an exercise in value capture. The project developers are trying to capture as much value as possible for their investors. The only thing that matters is that solar stays competitive in the energy market. As long as that happens, someone somewhere in the value chain can try and capture more value as other costs decrease. For example, what is stopping land owners from raising rents for solar projects? Right now, land is relatively cheap because there is not a lot of competition for it. But there are only so many parcels that are near transmission lines with good geographical features, and I fully expect land prices to increase as solar penetration increases. But this is really just a guess. If you are interested in current project cost breakdowns, figure 30 in this report does a pretty good job[1]. Module costs were the primary driver of cost reductions in the last 20 years. But they now account for only 40% of total project costs. So even if module prices fell by 50%, that would only result in a 20% decline in total project cost. While a 20% drop in prices would be nice, I don't think it really changes the math much with respect to nuclear (the math is already overwhelmingly in favor of solar). Also, I do agree that the average lifespan of these systems are going to be much longer than 20 years and that has not been priced in. But I don't think that is going to really change things anytime soon. Financial models and risk models are incredibly crude instruments. Using them to model even 5 to 10 years in the future is already extending them well beyond what they were designed for. But we have to put an end date on these models because at some point every project is going to cease to exist. And 20 years is what the banks like, so that is what we use. [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf

pfdietz 5y ago

Why is solar not likely to decrease much? If the historical experience curve continues there's still room for a factor of several decrease in its cost.

ncmncm 5y ago
It would not be surprising if costs for storage fell much more than photovoltaics, over the next decade, and for the same reasons as for the latter.
- godelski 5y ago
  In fact, cost of storage is expected to fall over the next following decade or two. Problem is, we needed to start solving climate 50 years ago. We don't have time to wait another 10 to 20 years. We now are forced to go the unoptimal route and more expensive.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Storage costs are plummeting already. But because generating capacity is now so cheap, we can afford expensive storage construction. Storage typically has very low operating cost, but is just now expensive to build. So, it will be cheaper to build storage later, but anything built this year will continue operating.
qqqwerty 5y ago
Solar is already dirt cheap, and there is not much more juice left to squeeze. We might get a little bit more cost reduction over the next decade, maybe somewhere in the 10-50% range, but this isn't much compared the multiple hundreds of % that we saw over the last two decades. Also, at least in the short term, we are seeing some increases in cost due to supply chain and inflation issues.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  You're just repeating the assertion there. What fundamentally prevents the cost of solar from falling even more? This cost has to come from some irreducible input. Materials? Energy? Labor? Which is it? As for cost of delivered energy from solar, there is a final reduction that can still be obtained even if the cost/watt were to plateau immediately: extension of the lifespan of the system. This could be obtained by, over time, identifying and addressing all the degradation modes of the components of the system.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    Predicting the future is hard. You are asking a question that pretty much no one has a good answer to (at least no one who is being honest). Are permitting fees an irreducible input? Probably not. Are lawyers fees an irreducible input? Maybe but unlikely. Are project developer salaries an irreducible input? I have no idea. But I also think you are mis-applying a mental model about the cost of manufactured goods to the cost of solar plant development. In a competitive free market, the cost of manufactured goods should eventually be reduced to a sum of their inputs plus any profit. But solar development is inherently an exercise in value capture. The project developers are trying to capture as much value as possible for their investors. The only thing that matters is that solar stays competitive in the energy market. As long as that happens, someone somewhere in the value chain can try and capture more value as other costs decrease. For example, what is stopping land owners from raising rents for solar projects? Right now, land is relatively cheap because there is not a lot of competition for it. But there are only so many parcels that are near transmission lines with good geographical features, and I fully expect land prices to increase as solar penetration increases. But this is really just a guess. If you are interested in current project cost breakdowns, figure 30 in this report does a pretty good job[1]. Module costs were the primary driver of cost reductions in the last 20 years. But they now account for only 40% of total project costs. So even if module prices fell by 50%, that would only result in a 20% decline in total project cost. While a 20% drop in prices would be nice, I don't think it really changes the math much with respect to nuclear (the math is already overwhelmingly in favor of solar). Also, I do agree that the average lifespan of these systems are going to be much longer than 20 years and that has not been priced in. But I don't think that is going to really change things anytime soon. Financial models and risk models are incredibly crude instruments. Using them to model even 5 to 10 years in the future is already extending them well beyond what they were designed for. But we have to put an end date on these models because at some point every project is going to cease to exist. And 20 years is what the banks like, so that is what we use. [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf