2 ms·

Given the outcome of Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and NuScale that predictability leans heavily towards renewables. The

Given the outcome of Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and NuScale that predictability leans heavily towards renewables. They get built on time and within budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr-uamps-rising-steel-prices-interest-rates/636619/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr...

scythe 4y ago
The EPA numbers are from 2022, so assuming a modestly competent methodology they've already taken these issues into account. Choosing the six worst projects you can find is hardly a good analysis. The scale-up issues I mentioned would not be applicable until you actually have very high construction volume, which currently does not exist anywhere. For example, the US built some 20 GW of PV in 2021, which is worth about 40 TWh/year assuming a typical capacity factor. But at that rate it would take some 90 years to build enough for the whole country, ignoring a likely increase in electricity consumption for heating and transportation (displacing gas), and ignoring any replacement. So the actually needed rate of solar installation is probably around five to ten times the current rate. Certainly, there is plenty of land and silicon in the long run. But there is still the question of whether it will be bought and produced at similar prices when the market pressures are that much larger. And the US still beat e.g. Germany in PV installs per capita in 2021. The goal is not only to get off fossil fuels, but to do it fast.

scythe 4y ago

The EPA numbers are from 2022, so assuming a modestly competent methodology they've already taken these issues into account. Choosing the six worst projects you can find is hardly a good analysis. The scale-up issues I mentioned would not be applicable until you actually have very high construction volume, which currently does not exist anywhere. For example, the US built some 20 GW of PV in 2021, which is worth about 40 TWh/year assuming a typical capacity factor. But at that rate it would take some 90 years to build enough for the whole country, ignoring a likely increase in electricity consumption for heating and transportation (displacing gas), and ignoring any replacement. So the actually needed rate of solar installation is probably around five to ten times the current rate. Certainly, there is plenty of land and silicon in the long run. But there is still the question of whether it will be bought and produced at similar prices when the market pressures are that much larger. And the US still beat e.g. Germany in PV installs per capita in 2021. The goal is not only to get off fossil fuels, but to do it fast.