4 ms·

Ok, but "I think renewables will get cheaper faster than nuclear" is a very different claim than "renewables are way cheaper than nuclear right now."

• pfdietz 4y ago
  It's a different claim. It's looking at trends rather than at a specific point. Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production (of the solar hardware). Solar is about 4% of global electricity production now, so scaling it to saturation (just for current electricity demand, which will grow as the world becomes richer and more electrification replaces fossil heat) would drop the cost by another factor of 3.
  • MagnumOpus 4y ago
    > Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production This only worked while panels were the lion's share of the cost of a solar installation. These days, costs of real estate, installation and grid connection far exceed the cost of panels -- and those costs go up every year with labour costs rather than coming down.
    • pfdietz 4y ago
      Costs of installation only go up? There has been steady improvement there, particularly at utility scale. No more expensive poured concrete foundations, just screw earth anchors into the ground. Or are you talking labor-intensive installation onto residential rooftops? Well, stop doing that, it's kind of stupid. Real estate costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of installed solar in much of the US, and in much of the world. A solar powered global economy will not be putting many panels on the small fraction of the world's surface that's unusually expensive, but will focus those panels on places where it's cheaper. It's the same reason we don't grow wheat in Manhattan.