4 ms·

> the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant. Yes this is ge

> the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant. Yes this is generally my argument. If you take the money you would spend on nuclear and spend it instead on solar, wind, gridscale storage, as well as EV and home battery rebates, you end up with a much more robust distributed energy production grid with very low maintenance costs. I think the idea of including rebates for home batteries and EVs is an important one, because it means that when major parts of the power line system are knocked out for some reason, you still have a lot of distributed storage. You can also begin energy production with a solar and battery roll out MUCH sooner than new nuclear construction. From a climate change perspective, producing clean energy sooner is a big deal. And we should not overlook that nuclear energy is a single target for terrorist attack and requires a powerful state to manage security for the plant and its supply chain, while batteries and renewables require no such thing. From a libertarian/anarchist perspective, we can have a weaker state and still have good energy production with renewables. EDIT: I am also realizing that handing out a bunch of rebates to the voters for new stuff (rooftop solar, home batteries, new EVs) would be WAY more politically popular than "lets pay now for a big monolithic nuclear power plant that takes 20 years to build." If you want a plan that actually works, keeping the voters happy seems like an important component.

gnicholas 4y ago
But if you just price in the cost of the rebates, aren’t you overlooking a large chunk of the cost, which is borne by homeowners? That’s still a cost, even if it’s not being directly paid by the government.
anton96 4y ago
So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. But you need to add that Renewable solution only last 20 years vs 60 for nuclear. That can be seen like triple the cost you factored in already. And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  I'm not sure what the service life of a wind turbine is, but 20 years is about right for a photovoltaic solar panel. The power output begins to fall off drastically at that point.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    It's about 15-20 years for wind turbines, depending on the circumstances.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  LCOE is usually used to more easily compare the investment cost. While this leads to more resource usage... Because of economies of scale, wind turbines from 20 years into the future will be less expensive, more efficient and overall better.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  > So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount. > And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity. This was already factored in to the calculation I was agreeing with. They said that to get sufficient capacity in renewables considering reduced availability, it still costs 1/2 what nuclear costs. I will copy and paste the relevant section from that comment for clarity: >> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant." > https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/#Comparing_and_Contrasting https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...

gnicholas 4y ago

But if you just price in the cost of the rebates, aren’t you overlooking a large chunk of the cost, which is borne by homeowners? That’s still a cost, even if it’s not being directly paid by the government.

anton96 4y ago

So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. But you need to add that Renewable solution only last 20 years vs 60 for nuclear. That can be seen like triple the cost you factored in already. And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.

Teknoman117 4y ago
I'm not sure what the service life of a wind turbine is, but 20 years is about right for a photovoltaic solar panel. The power output begins to fall off drastically at that point.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  It's about 15-20 years for wind turbines, depending on the circumstances.
cinntaile 4y ago
LCOE is usually used to more easily compare the investment cost. While this leads to more resource usage... Because of economies of scale, wind turbines from 20 years into the future will be less expensive, more efficient and overall better.
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
> So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount. > And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity. This was already factored in to the calculation I was agreeing with. They said that to get sufficient capacity in renewables considering reduced availability, it still costs 1/2 what nuclear costs. I will copy and paste the relevant section from that comment for clarity: >> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant." > https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/#Comparing_and_Contrasting https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...