5 ms·
By expensive, I mean in $/kWh - yes we could build enough nuclear power plants to stop carbon emissions, but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater tha
by sweezyjeezy 4y ago
By expensive, I mean in $/kWh - yes we could build enough nuclear power plants to stop carbon emissions, but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead?
I've heard this idea that we should "do everything", but I don't get that, why don't we do the best thing as well and as fast as we can?
- acidburnNSA 4y ago> but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead? First of all, we are investing more in renewables right now than nuclear. Much much more. Second of all, your statement is true for LCOE, but LCOE is an inappropriate metric for systems costs. It does not include the cost of storage, additional transmission lines to reach thousands of distributed wind/solar sites, extra capacity to fill up the storage, the required smart grid tech, etc. Quoting just LCOE is becoming extremely problematic. Everyone does it, and it's very misleading. Details of why it's best to also invest in nuclear from a full systems perspective are published and peer reviewed here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006
- joak 4y agoExactly, if you build a coal power plant today, the LCOE is calculated assuming the facility will run, let's say, for 30 years at 80% capacity. But what happens if you have to stop your power plant in ten years because its (LCOE-estimated) cost is not competitive anymore? So based on an biased LCOE computation, you sold your coal-based kWh at a third of it's real cost. Bad for the investor, bad for the climate.
- sweezyjeezy 4y agoYeah but we shouldn't be comparing to coal - I already said this.