4 ms·

nuclear doesn't use cheap small turbines like that. the output is far too large and they're nowhere near efficient enough. a 1gw plant is currently about $7.5

nuclear doesn't use cheap small turbines like that. the output is far too large and they're nowhere near efficient enough. a 1gw plant is currently about $7.5 billion, most of which isn't hardware but cost of capital, so the price you're claiming is 10% of total, which is hardly "negligable." Typical US buildout is 71% cost of capital, 15% equipment, 12% construction, 2% permitting, so, the number you're claiming would represent half of the entire plant equipment cost, which isn't correct nuclear plants typically use either two or three very different kinds of turbines, which are an order of magnitude different in price - msbs, lsbs, and maybe elsbs if the plant is big enough EDF's entire nuclear turbine business - they're one of the largest on earth - is only valued at 1.1 billion, which at your price is ... less than two turbines https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/edf-seeks-to-lower-price-of-ges-french-turbines-deal-source https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/edf-seeks-to-lower-price-of-...

credit_guy 4y ago
I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it? In any case, here's a separate reference to corroborate my numbers. It's a study by EIA ( US Energy Information Administration) published in 2020 [1] where they compare the capital costs of different power plants. One such power plant they consider is a nuclear plant with 2 AP1000 reactors with a total capacity of 2.2 GW. The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Their overall estimate for such a power plant is about $14 BN, which means the conventional part of the plant is about 10%. Of course, in the case of Vogtle 3/4 (which uses 2 AP1000 reactors), the overall cost is estimated at about $25 BN, due to various cost overruns. [1] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2020.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it? The devices are too small and the numbers are too high. (These things can be looked up.) You know, kind of like how if you build a $300k machine out of A100s, and then try to match it with 3090s, you end up spending $800k. . > The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Sorry, no, your comment was about the turbines, and the document you're linking to is about *the entire plant*. Please stop trying to google-fight your way through this. You can't learn with your finger in the air.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The issue with turbines is not their capital cost (which is on par with the still falling all-included cost of PV) but rather operating cost. Steam turbines need frequent, expensive overhauls because superheated steam under high pressure is very hard on everything inside. Renewables suffer no opex of such scale. They age out and need to be replaced, on a time scale of decades, but will be much cheaper to replace, then, than they cost up front. Probably perovskites will be used to replace silicon.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    Both their initial and their replacement cost is wildly higher than nuclear. Comparisons without a null hypothesis are defunct by nature.

credit_guy 4y ago

I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it? In any case, here's a separate reference to corroborate my numbers. It's a study by EIA ( US Energy Information Administration) published in 2020 [1] where they compare the capital costs of different power plants. One such power plant they consider is a nuclear plant with 2 AP1000 reactors with a total capacity of 2.2 GW. The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Their overall estimate for such a power plant is about $14 BN, which means the conventional part of the plant is about 10%. Of course, in the case of Vogtle 3/4 (which uses 2 AP1000 reactors), the overall cost is estimated at about $25 BN, due to various cost overruns. [1] https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2020.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost...

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> I can't follow your argument. You seem to imply at the same time that my numbers are too small and too high. Which one is it? The devices are too small and the numbers are too high. (These things can be looked up.) You know, kind of like how if you build a $300k machine out of A100s, and then try to match it with 3090s, you end up spending $800k. . > The conventional part of the power plant is listed at $1.4 BN (page 107), which comes at about $640 MM/GW, in line with the estimate from my previous comment. Sorry, no, your comment was about the turbines, and the document you're linking to is about *the entire plant*. Please stop trying to google-fight your way through this. You can't learn with your finger in the air.
ncmncm 4y ago
The issue with turbines is not their capital cost (which is on par with the still falling all-included cost of PV) but rather operating cost. Steam turbines need frequent, expensive overhauls because superheated steam under high pressure is very hard on everything inside. Renewables suffer no opex of such scale. They age out and need to be replaced, on a time scale of decades, but will be much cheaper to replace, then, than they cost up front. Probably perovskites will be used to replace silicon.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  Both their initial and their replacement cost is wildly higher than nuclear. Comparisons without a null hypothesis are defunct by nature.