4 ms·

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/leveliz

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

belorn 5y ago
Looking at the full reports on hydrogen and other storage solutions, the conclusion seems to be the same as it has been for a while. Nuclear is cheaper than any combination of renewables + storage except for a few hours of capacity storage when used in combination with PV. What makes storage with PV profitable is the discharge cycle of 24hrs and low capacity, but the energy grid in many countries require long duration capacity and this has yet to make commercial sense. Thus the most economical way to construct a grid right now is renewables when weather is optimal and fossil fuels when its not. Optimize for cost and that is what you get, and that type of grid is exactly what many countries energy politic has been subsidizing towards. Nuclear don't need storage, but it also cost more than both renewables and fossil fuels.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I think you must be misreading the tables. It is only sunk-cost nukes, ignoring construction and leaning on military subsidies, that match the current cost of renewables + solar. And, of course, the cost of the latter at the time any new nuke construction could (ever) be completed will be much lower.
  - belorn 5y ago
    You are not reading the full report. All the storage solutions that are cheaper than nuclear power has a capacity of 1-6 hours, not days or weeks. Anything longer has yet to achieve economical viability. The few ones that has a prognosis in the near future to start being economical viable has a key assumption of a full discharge cycle of 24hrs for 365 days per year, which I repeat, has yet to exist. A full discharge cycle mean it must charge and then sell all the energy it captured, and in their prognosis, it need to do so every single day. A battery that does that, and only carries 1-6 hours of capacity, can match the cost of nuclear power. Otherwise nuclear power is cheaper, and in comparison to green hydrogen, nuclear power is cheaper by a very large margin.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Storage cost is still falling very, very fast. When you finally finish building your nuke, lo those many years on, you would not be able to win any bids selling at cost; so could not service your debt. (This is easily predictable, so you will not get the loan.) And anyway, all the money tied up in it during all that time would be unavailable to displace coal, so you would additionally need to pay for coal that whole time.
      - belorn 5y ago
        The last calculations I saw on green hydrogen put it around 100x the cost of current energy prices. That is a far distance to fall before it reach competitive prices, and until then people are murder each other over fossil fuels and causing global extinctions. If you want to call those nuclear plants for nukes, then I will call current energy policies for planet killers. Someone has to take responsibility while waiting for that cost to come down. A proper market solution would be to ban fossil fuels now and let non-fossil fuels alternative compete for investment and research. Not hopes and dream but technology that works when one can not just fall back on burning murder gas. Fossil fuel advocates are working very hard to convince people that coal should be replaced with natural gas, rather than non-fossil fuel alternatives.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        You clearly are relying on falsehoods. I can make hydrogen at home at much better than 1% efficiency.
parkingrift 5y ago
Looks like nuclear is competitive with solar when storage is taken into account. This is about as I expected.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  No. That is only for sunk-cost nukes, not for new construction.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

belorn 5y ago

Looking at the full reports on hydrogen and other storage solutions, the conclusion seems to be the same as it has been for a while. Nuclear is cheaper than any combination of renewables + storage except for a few hours of capacity storage when used in combination with PV. What makes storage with PV profitable is the discharge cycle of 24hrs and low capacity, but the energy grid in many countries require long duration capacity and this has yet to make commercial sense. Thus the most economical way to construct a grid right now is renewables when weather is optimal and fossil fuels when its not. Optimize for cost and that is what you get, and that type of grid is exactly what many countries energy politic has been subsidizing towards. Nuclear don't need storage, but it also cost more than both renewables and fossil fuels.

ncmncm 5y ago
I think you must be misreading the tables. It is only sunk-cost nukes, ignoring construction and leaning on military subsidies, that match the current cost of renewables + solar. And, of course, the cost of the latter at the time any new nuke construction could (ever) be completed will be much lower.
- belorn 5y ago
  You are not reading the full report. All the storage solutions that are cheaper than nuclear power has a capacity of 1-6 hours, not days or weeks. Anything longer has yet to achieve economical viability. The few ones that has a prognosis in the near future to start being economical viable has a key assumption of a full discharge cycle of 24hrs for 365 days per year, which I repeat, has yet to exist. A full discharge cycle mean it must charge and then sell all the energy it captured, and in their prognosis, it need to do so every single day. A battery that does that, and only carries 1-6 hours of capacity, can match the cost of nuclear power. Otherwise nuclear power is cheaper, and in comparison to green hydrogen, nuclear power is cheaper by a very large margin.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Storage cost is still falling very, very fast. When you finally finish building your nuke, lo those many years on, you would not be able to win any bids selling at cost; so could not service your debt. (This is easily predictable, so you will not get the loan.) And anyway, all the money tied up in it during all that time would be unavailable to displace coal, so you would additionally need to pay for coal that whole time.
    - belorn 5y ago
      The last calculations I saw on green hydrogen put it around 100x the cost of current energy prices. That is a far distance to fall before it reach competitive prices, and until then people are murder each other over fossil fuels and causing global extinctions. If you want to call those nuclear plants for nukes, then I will call current energy policies for planet killers. Someone has to take responsibility while waiting for that cost to come down. A proper market solution would be to ban fossil fuels now and let non-fossil fuels alternative compete for investment and research. Not hopes and dream but technology that works when one can not just fall back on burning murder gas. Fossil fuel advocates are working very hard to convince people that coal should be replaced with natural gas, rather than non-fossil fuel alternatives.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        You clearly are relying on falsehoods. I can make hydrogen at home at much better than 1% efficiency.

parkingrift 5y ago

Looks like nuclear is competitive with solar when storage is taken into account. This is about as I expected.

ncmncm 5y ago
No. That is only for sunk-cost nukes, not for new construction.