3 ms·

Great analysis, and I agree that renewable + storage is the right thing to compare against nuclear. I think the area where nuclear has the biggest potential to

Great analysis, and I agree that renewable + storage is the right thing to compare against nuclear. I think the area where nuclear has the biggest potential to shine is competing with very long duration storage—e.g. month long underperformance of wind + solar up to seasonal differences in demand/renewable output. Battery self discharge is around 1% a day, so it could be totally impossible to use it to cover seasonal differences. I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. Plenty of opportunities left for the world to bet on the wrong technology. Leaving aside all the price variability and learning rates, there’s also the issue of how these technologies will perform hour to hour as renewable supply and demand changes (and more end uses like transportation switch away from fossil fuels). A truly hellish optimization problem. [0] https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20-%20ESGC%20Cost%20Performance%20Report%2012-11-2020.pdf https://www.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/media/file/Final%20...

trashtester 4y ago
> I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. From your number for hydrogen, I suppose batteries make more sense for "typical" variance, while hydrogen makes more sense for unusual periods of downtime (rain in the desert, more than 2-3 days without ANY wind). Also, it would make sense if most of the electrolysis would be performed in areas with high random variance in electricity production (typically wind). As you say, nuclear will have an advantage for longer in areas with highly seasonal variance. One advantage of hydrogen, though, is that it is relatively easy to transport to where it is needed. Still, by combining our numbers, it seems to me like for projects starting today, Nuclear is still competitive to, if not outright cheaper than renewables, if the goal is 100% carbon-free power within 10-20 years. Breakthroughs in battery production (or hydrogen production, but less likely), might change that. But then again, if Nuclear was built with enough volume, minimal corruption and with a rational balancing of cost/risk, the cost of nuclear should also come back down quite a bit. I definitely think it should be possible to reach levelized costs well under $0.1/kwh if contracts are given to international construction/operations companies able to utilize economies of scale.

trashtester 4y ago

> I’ve looked a little at hydrogen [0]. It’s got similar self discharge issues that batteries have (i.e. leaks or cooling energy costs). It’s also currently around 1-2 times as expensive as batteries per kWh cycle, and the technology isn’t getting cheaper as fast as batteries. From your number for hydrogen, I suppose batteries make more sense for "typical" variance, while hydrogen makes more sense for unusual periods of downtime (rain in the desert, more than 2-3 days without ANY wind). Also, it would make sense if most of the electrolysis would be performed in areas with high random variance in electricity production (typically wind). As you say, nuclear will have an advantage for longer in areas with highly seasonal variance. One advantage of hydrogen, though, is that it is relatively easy to transport to where it is needed. Still, by combining our numbers, it seems to me like for projects starting today, Nuclear is still competitive to, if not outright cheaper than renewables, if the goal is 100% carbon-free power within 10-20 years. Breakthroughs in battery production (or hydrogen production, but less likely), might change that. But then again, if Nuclear was built with enough volume, minimal corruption and with a rational balancing of cost/risk, the cost of nuclear should also come back down quite a bit. I definitely think it should be possible to reach levelized costs well under $0.1/kwh if contracts are given to international construction/operations companies able to utilize economies of scale.