6 ms·

I'll have to really look into the price breakdown. I thought the output of nuclear would more than make up for that. Regardless, renewables can also be built. I

by proc0 4y ago

I'll have to really look into the price breakdown. I thought the output of nuclear would more than make up for that. Regardless, renewables can also be built. I don't think it should be all nuclear, but it seems like the only way to scale consumption at the moment. Both technologies will get better as well, and I think the biggest innovation right now is on the nuclear side with nuclear fusion.

epistasis 4y ago
I'd recommend Lazard for cost info of both generation and storage 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-... These are last year's numbers, but I don't expect that we will see much of a drop later this month when the new numbers come out, since demand is still way outpacing supply at the moment. Additionally, we do not expect nuclear to decrease in cost. Throughout its entire history, it has not, and there's no tech on the horizon to expect a change. Nuclear is primarily a construction project, not manufacturing. Construction does not see the massive productivity gains that manufacturing does. In France and the US, one country with favorable regulatory conditions, and one with supposedly bad regulatory conditions, subsequent builds of the same reactor get more expensive, not less. South Korea managed to figure out how to decrease costs with subsequent reactors, but SK also sent many of their suppliers' execs to jail for corruption on certifications. In contrast, solar, wind, and storage see massive innovation year after year, for decades. They are in a true tech curve, and have scaled to hundreds of GW/year of deployment. Scaling nuclear to the point of deploying hundreds of GW/year is pretty difficult to imagine. We don't have the labor force to enable something like that, and couldn't build it in any reasonable time frame. Nuclear simply does not scale as well as the manufactured technologies of solar, wind, and storage.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Bear in mind that generation is only part of the holistic system of energy delivery. Intermittent sources require storage, which is separated out into a separate chart. Even just 4 hours of storage would bring solar's $30/MW to $210 to $350/MW. And 4 hours of storage is pretty thin - most plans call for 12 hours of storage. And storage costs are only projected to increase: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-set-to-spike-as-raw-material-shortages-drags-on.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-set-to-spik... By comparison nuclear costs $131-$204/MW, so it's still cheaper after storage. The Lazard estimate also didn't include the transmission expansions necessary to support the distributed nature of renewable generation (explained further here: https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-energy-high-voltage-transmission-lines https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...)
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You seem to be mixing up some units, but it doesn't change the point. Assuming your numbers are up to date (which I'm sceptical of at 4h storage): Firstly nuclear also requires storage otherwise you're paying $400-600/MWh on account of the idle capital. Secondly you don't need to lead with storage, you can build out up to 50% or so renewable without. Thirdly if the costs of battery were to halve or quarter, such as by the conversion of lithium ion to sodium ion production which is already happening, then the reasoning evaporates entirely.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      The units aren't being mixed up, they're in both MW and MWh. 100 MW / 400 MWh refers to the storage capacity required to put out 100 megawatts for four hours. Say you have a 100 MW solar facility, how much does it cost to keep the plant running 4 hours after sundown? That's what 100 MW / 400 MWh means. So sum this number with the cost of generation up on the chart above, and that's the net cost with storage. Nuclear doesn't need storage, since it's power output is not intermittent. The amount of wasted capacity varies with season, but minimum demand is usually 80% of peak demand. In the summer, this increases and the peak demand occurs during the day. This is a good place for solar: rooftop solar mitigating A/C is a great application of solar. But to fulfill base load, which is the vast majority of electricity demand, it is an ineffective choice.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    > Even just 4 hours of storage would bring solar's $30/MW to $210 to $350/MW (Assuming you mean MWh here and it's just a typo.). Where are you getting those numbers Lazard's estimates that I linked have solar at $130-$230/MWh when charging directly from the grid, and $85-$160/MWh when charging from attached solar which shares the same inverters. (And for additional duration, just add more batteries and discharge them at less power) So if you blend 50% stored electricity with 50% delivered from primary renewable generation at a fraction of the cost, it's way below nuclear's costs. Finally, we don't even really know that those are nuclear's costs. We haven't finished Vogtle, so we are at scientific-wild-ass-guess stage of how much it will be when it finishes. Go back 10 years and the estimated cost of nuclear is almost reasonable, but every single year that we have had Vogtle delays and cost increases, the general estimates of nuclear's cost goes up. We don't know when it will stop going up, until we have a few more reactors built. And when you add in the cost of potential construction failure, like at South Carolina's Summer addition, started at the same time as Vogtle, nuclear goes up even more. People always overestimate the potential of nuclear, for some reason, and reality bites them. In contrast, people always underestimate the potential of storage and renewables, and reality delights them. It's time to reset our expectations based on the copious amounts of data we have collected over the past decade.

by proc0 4y ago

epistasis 4y ago

I'd recommend Lazard for cost info of both generation and storage 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-... These are last year's numbers, but I don't expect that we will see much of a drop later this month when the new numbers come out, since demand is still way outpacing supply at the moment. Additionally, we do not expect nuclear to decrease in cost. Throughout its entire history, it has not, and there's no tech on the horizon to expect a change. Nuclear is primarily a construction project, not manufacturing. Construction does not see the massive productivity gains that manufacturing does. In France and the US, one country with favorable regulatory conditions, and one with supposedly bad regulatory conditions, subsequent builds of the same reactor get more expensive, not less. South Korea managed to figure out how to decrease costs with subsequent reactors, but SK also sent many of their suppliers' execs to jail for corruption on certifications. In contrast, solar, wind, and storage see massive innovation year after year, for decades. They are in a true tech curve, and have scaled to hundreds of GW/year of deployment. Scaling nuclear to the point of deploying hundreds of GW/year is pretty difficult to imagine. We don't have the labor force to enable something like that, and couldn't build it in any reasonable time frame. Nuclear simply does not scale as well as the manufactured technologies of solar, wind, and storage.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Bear in mind that generation is only part of the holistic system of energy delivery. Intermittent sources require storage, which is separated out into a separate chart. Even just 4 hours of storage would bring solar's $30/MW to $210 to $350/MW. And 4 hours of storage is pretty thin - most plans call for 12 hours of storage. And storage costs are only projected to increase: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-set-to-spike-as-raw-material-shortages-drags-on.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/ev-battery-costs-set-to-spik... By comparison nuclear costs $131-$204/MW, so it's still cheaper after storage. The Lazard estimate also didn't include the transmission expansions necessary to support the distributed nature of renewable generation (explained further here: https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-energy-high-voltage-transmission-lines https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...)
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You seem to be mixing up some units, but it doesn't change the point. Assuming your numbers are up to date (which I'm sceptical of at 4h storage): Firstly nuclear also requires storage otherwise you're paying $400-600/MWh on account of the idle capital. Secondly you don't need to lead with storage, you can build out up to 50% or so renewable without. Thirdly if the costs of battery were to halve or quarter, such as by the conversion of lithium ion to sodium ion production which is already happening, then the reasoning evaporates entirely.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    The units aren't being mixed up, they're in both MW and MWh. 100 MW / 400 MWh refers to the storage capacity required to put out 100 megawatts for four hours. Say you have a 100 MW solar facility, how much does it cost to keep the plant running 4 hours after sundown? That's what 100 MW / 400 MWh means. So sum this number with the cost of generation up on the chart above, and that's the net cost with storage. Nuclear doesn't need storage, since it's power output is not intermittent. The amount of wasted capacity varies with season, but minimum demand is usually 80% of peak demand. In the summer, this increases and the peak demand occurs during the day. This is a good place for solar: rooftop solar mitigating A/C is a great application of solar. But to fulfill base load, which is the vast majority of electricity demand, it is an ineffective choice.
- epistasis 4y ago
  > Even just 4 hours of storage would bring solar's $30/MW to $210 to $350/MW (Assuming you mean MWh here and it's just a typo.). Where are you getting those numbers Lazard's estimates that I linked have solar at $130-$230/MWh when charging directly from the grid, and $85-$160/MWh when charging from attached solar which shares the same inverters. (And for additional duration, just add more batteries and discharge them at less power) So if you blend 50% stored electricity with 50% delivered from primary renewable generation at a fraction of the cost, it's way below nuclear's costs. Finally, we don't even really know that those are nuclear's costs. We haven't finished Vogtle, so we are at scientific-wild-ass-guess stage of how much it will be when it finishes. Go back 10 years and the estimated cost of nuclear is almost reasonable, but every single year that we have had Vogtle delays and cost increases, the general estimates of nuclear's cost goes up. We don't know when it will stop going up, until we have a few more reactors built. And when you add in the cost of potential construction failure, like at South Carolina's Summer addition, started at the same time as Vogtle, nuclear goes up even more. People always overestimate the potential of nuclear, for some reason, and reality bites them. In contrast, people always underestimate the potential of storage and renewables, and reality delights them. It's time to reset our expectations based on the copious amounts of data we have collected over the past decade.