3 ms·

I'm not sure where your numbers are from, but just because $2B sounds like a big number, it isn't inherently a dealbreaker. If that's 600 MWe, running at 80% c

I'm not sure where your numbers are from, but just because $2B sounds like a big number, it isn't inherently a dealbreaker. If that's 600 MWe, running at 80% capacity factor, amortized over 30 years, then the $2B becomes: 2e9/(600 * 1000 * 0.8 * 24 * 365 * 30) = $0.0158 / kWh -- the $2B capital cost amortizes to 1.6 cents per kWh of electricity sold. Not zero, but 1.6 cents is far less than the current market price of a kWh. If you're going to compare to utility-scale solar or wind, be sure to include their much lower capacity factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#/media/File:US_EIA_monthly_capacity_factors_2011-2013.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#/media/File:US... (Admittedly: we don't yet know the capital cost of a working fusion heat source, or its capacity factor. Both will determine whether this is economically competitive.)

dtgriscom 4y ago
You aren't including fuel costs; any guesses?
- compumike 4y ago
  You might be interested in Lazard's "Levelized Cost Of Energy" PDF (https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-o... , from https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...). On page 15 note "This analysis does not take into account potential social and environmental externalities or reliability-related considerations", and that solar and wind do not get the checkmark for "baseload" -- only "intermittent". Pages 13 and 14 show Fuel Costs as: Wind: 0 Solar: 0 Coal: $13-$18/MWh ($0.013 - $0.018 per kWh) Fission: $9/MWh ($0.009 per kWh) Natural Gas: $21-34/MWh ($0.021 - $0.034 per kWh) As a retail consumer, I'm paying about $0.15 per kWh, though I know that includes transmission and distribution and retail markup. Fusion has the potential to be very low on fuel costs. But the capital costs are an unknown. In my original comment, I tried to show that when amortized over enough kWh for sale, even $Billions in capital costs could make sense, if they give us a machine that produces zero-carbon baseload electrical generation at scale.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    With fusion, you are basically burning the reactor. The actual fuel cost is inconsequential.

dtgriscom 4y ago

You aren't including fuel costs; any guesses?

compumike 4y ago
You might be interested in Lazard's "Levelized Cost Of Energy" PDF (https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-o... , from https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...). On page 15 note "This analysis does not take into account potential social and environmental externalities or reliability-related considerations", and that solar and wind do not get the checkmark for "baseload" -- only "intermittent". Pages 13 and 14 show Fuel Costs as: Wind: 0 Solar: 0 Coal: $13-$18/MWh ($0.013 - $0.018 per kWh) Fission: $9/MWh ($0.009 per kWh) Natural Gas: $21-34/MWh ($0.021 - $0.034 per kWh) As a retail consumer, I'm paying about $0.15 per kWh, though I know that includes transmission and distribution and retail markup. Fusion has the potential to be very low on fuel costs. But the capital costs are an unknown. In my original comment, I tried to show that when amortized over enough kWh for sale, even $Billions in capital costs could make sense, if they give us a machine that produces zero-carbon baseload electrical generation at scale.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  With fusion, you are basically burning the reactor. The actual fuel cost is inconsequential.