3 ms·

The LCOE for utility scale solar is around $68/MWh while new nuclear is $88/MWh. The LCOE for grid storage of power (necessary addition to solar) is $160/MWh.

The LCOE for utility scale solar is around $68/MWh while new nuclear is $88/MWh. The LCOE for grid storage of power (necessary addition to solar) is $160/MWh. Double solar with grid storage is as much as $300/MWh at the utility scale using globalized averages reported to NEA, BNEF, Lazard, IRENA 2018-2020. Obviously some countries will be a lot more or less on costs depending on their circumstances and location. Interconnect isn't enough, all of the US is in darkness for several hours a day. (And Texas will never connect). You require storage, and I still question if 2X is enough to produce enough power during a 10 year minimum without firing up extensive hydrocarbon peaker plants.

Retric 5y ago
Nuclear is nowhere near that cheap, LCOE even with massive subsides in the US sees 2020 nuclear well past 160$/MWH and rising. Wind and solar are both under 50$/MWH LCOE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/medi...
- criley2 5y ago
  The number I quoted is from the same Wikipedia article on LCOE that you used, and I used a globalized average as I said in my post. Your $50MWh also does not include storage LCOE, and not including secondary costs for solar when Nuclear has no secondary costs is considered "a trick" to lie about solar costs. Include the costs of gigawatts of Elon's lithium ion batteries, and include the cost of having to 2X-4X solar compared to Nuclear to account for variable solar output due to days and seasons, as I said, and your $50MWh becomes around $300MWh
  - Retric 5y ago
    First demand isn’t flat, so 100% nuclear needs massive amounts of storage to reduce the number of nuclear power plants that would sit idle 90+% of the time. In the end something needs to take up the slack and nuclear doesn’t work by it’s self. If natural gas isn’t an option the only thing left is hydro which is limited or storage. Your also trying to cherry pick numbers the Wikipedia article also lists “$164/MWh” for nuclear. I found the table you got those numbers from which included multiple estimates from 2018 that used data from 2015 and double counting very optimistic nuclear estimates. Frankly utility solar is already being installed at sub 2c/kWh in the US. 68$/MWh would be 6.8c/kWh which shows how far off your umbers are. Anyway, I would be happy to see the power plant actually run that cheaply but your looking at very optimistic estimates for something that isn’t even online yet and is getting some serious subsides. Having said that if you’re data is from “Source: IEA/NEA, 2015.” https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7441-full-costs-2018-es.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7441-full-costs-2018-.... I can understand why you picked those numbers.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Yeah. Si monocrystalline PV modules fell in price by a factor of 4 from 2015 to 2020. So many people talking about energy seem to be stuck in an obsolete past.
  - megaman821 5y ago
    You are being unfair in the other direction. LCOE for wind/solar needs to be blended by figuring out the optimal mix of wind and solar for your area and adding on 4hrs of battery storage. There is not one set number for this but $200Wh and falling is a fair estimate.

Retric 5y ago

Nuclear is nowhere near that cheap, LCOE even with massive subsides in the US sees 2020 nuclear well past 160$/MWH and rising. Wind and solar are both under 50$/MWH LCOE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy#/medi...

criley2 5y ago
The number I quoted is from the same Wikipedia article on LCOE that you used, and I used a globalized average as I said in my post. Your $50MWh also does not include storage LCOE, and not including secondary costs for solar when Nuclear has no secondary costs is considered "a trick" to lie about solar costs. Include the costs of gigawatts of Elon's lithium ion batteries, and include the cost of having to 2X-4X solar compared to Nuclear to account for variable solar output due to days and seasons, as I said, and your $50MWh becomes around $300MWh
- Retric 5y ago
  First demand isn’t flat, so 100% nuclear needs massive amounts of storage to reduce the number of nuclear power plants that would sit idle 90+% of the time. In the end something needs to take up the slack and nuclear doesn’t work by it’s self. If natural gas isn’t an option the only thing left is hydro which is limited or storage. Your also trying to cherry pick numbers the Wikipedia article also lists “$164/MWh” for nuclear. I found the table you got those numbers from which included multiple estimates from 2018 that used data from 2015 and double counting very optimistic nuclear estimates. Frankly utility solar is already being installed at sub 2c/kWh in the US. 68$/MWh would be 6.8c/kWh which shows how far off your umbers are. Anyway, I would be happy to see the power plant actually run that cheaply but your looking at very optimistic estimates for something that isn’t even online yet and is getting some serious subsides. Having said that if you’re data is from “Source: IEA/NEA, 2015.” https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7441-full-costs-2018-es.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7441-full-costs-2018-.... I can understand why you picked those numbers.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Yeah. Si monocrystalline PV modules fell in price by a factor of 4 from 2015 to 2020. So many people talking about energy seem to be stuck in an obsolete past.
- megaman821 5y ago
  You are being unfair in the other direction. LCOE for wind/solar needs to be blended by figuring out the optimal mix of wind and solar for your area and adding on 4hrs of battery storage. There is not one set number for this but $200Wh and falling is a fair estimate.